Thank you for once again adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the conversation. Your posts are the intellectual equivalent of used chewing gum stuck under a chair.

Even as a troll, you fail.

truegroup

28-10-2010, 07:10 PM

Your quote from AH said 1.25 m that's the figure I used. Are you saying we can't trust the 3rd party evidence you brought into court? (Wouldn't be the first time)
No, I am not saying that! You have the knack of interpreting it to your own ends.
My third party 'evidence' says plus or minus .2m from 1.25m. I say it is nearer 1m. Do you have a problem understanding this??

The figures were used to show that the drop is very unlikely at Earth speed, since the initial velocity would be unfeasible. At Moon gravity it is not.
The fact they used a drop height span that may be slightly inaccurate is neither here nor there - the demonstration of what it means was more important.

As for the slope I already showed that level slopes down to the left given mean astro attitude (and I don't mean Buzz Aldrin's mean astro attitude)
No you didn't. Stop acting as though your lines drawn arbritrarily are actual proof. Moving Finger did the same analysis and was the opposite of what you did.

A leftward slope lengthens the fall
So what. He is coming UP slope, and the object falls towards us, UP slope, and actually would decrease the fall height by a few centimetres.
This is SO obvious, he is leaning forwards, towards the camera.

Say for sake of argument the fall is a metre, not the 1.25m from yr man @ AH
On Earth it takes 0.45 secs to fall 0.972 m (Each unit is 12mm in the above strobed photo exposure)

0.992m to be more precise. And?

Balls to arguments sake, the alignment I demonstrated puts that height at 1m, what do you say it is?

What initial velocity do you give to the object falling from a moving astronaut leaning forward? Are you saying zero? He is leaning forwards travelling up slope, and moving at 2 or 3 mph.

A nominal .6m per sec puts the fall exactly at 1m, whereas to make the fall as per Earth gravity it needs 1.5m per sec!!
I looked at the film sped up 1.6 and it is way too slow on the falling bag, dust being kicked and the 'hovering' bunny hops.

I notice you didn't comment on the completely wrong fall height for 1.6x speeded up(without ANY initial velocity:rolleyes:). Perhaps you could comment on it now?

rodin

28-10-2010, 08:11 PM

No, I am not saying that! You have the knack of interpreting it to your own ends.
My third party 'evidence' says plus or minus .2m from 1.25m. I say it is nearer 1m. Do you have a problem understanding this??

The figures were used to show that the drop is very unlikely at Earth speed, since the initial velocity would be unfeasible. At Moon gravity it is not.
The fact they used a drop height span that may be slightly inaccurate is neither here nor there - the demonstration of what it means was more important.

No you didn't. Stop acting as though your lines drawn arbritrarily are actual proof. Moving Finger did the same analysis and was the opposite of what you did.

So what. He is coming UP slope, and the object falls towards us, UP slope, and actually would decrease the fall height by a few centimetres.
This is SO obvious, he is leaning forwards, towards the camera.

0.992m to be more precise. And?

Balls to arguments sake, the alignment I demonstrated puts that height at 1m, what do you say it is?

What initial velocity do you give to the object falling from a moving astronaut leaning forward? Are you saying zero? He is leaning forwards travelling up slope, and moving at 2 or 3 mph.

A nominal .6m per sec puts the fall exactly at 1m, whereas to make the fall as per Earth gravity it needs 1.5m per sec!!
I looked at the film sped up 1.6 and it is way too slow on the falling bag, dust being kicked and the 'hovering' bunny hops.

I notice you didn't comment on the completely wrong fall height for 1.6x speeded up(without ANY initial velocity:rolleyes:). Perhaps you could comment on it now?

admit it you fucked up royally

shit in yr avatar again?

change of pants?

Q. Which way are these guys leaning? Do I have to put up a poll before you will admit defeat?

admit it you fucked up royally
What a crock.:rolleyes: It's your contention not mine.
They are coming up a slope. The bag has initial velocity of about half a meter a second. You just make up any old pants and draw a few lines.

I clearly showed the height at a meter. The video is clearly up slope.
And you as always can't admit when you are wrong.:mad:

Q. Which way are these guys leaning? Do I have to put up a poll before you will admit defeat?
Hmmm a poll of the massive DIF HB community? Yeah right.
Slightly left and FORWARDS!

Answer the 2 simple questions if you can!

How high was the bag? How fast was initial velocity?

p.s. wtf is that stupid picture above of?

rodin

28-10-2010, 09:07 PM

What a crock.:rolleyes: It's your contention not mine.
They are coming up a slope. The bag has initial velocity of about half a meter a second. You just make up any old pants and draw a few lines.

I clearly showed the height at a meter. The video is clearly up slope.
And you as always can't admit when you are wrong.:mad:

Hmmm a poll of the massive DIF HB community? Yeah right.
Slightly left and FORWARDS!

Hammers are easier to throw than balls. You get leverage from the handle.

When Apollo 17 geologist Harrison "Jack" Schmitt landed on the moon in 1972, moving around reminded him of skiing.

"I think downhill techniques would work very well on the moon," Schmitt said. "You even have built-in moguls, the impact craters on the slopes. Lunar gravity would allow all kinds of jumps and hops that you might find difficult on Earth."

For educational stories about potential extraterrestrial winter sports on the Web, visit: http://science.nasa.gov/

http://www.southgatearc.org/news/february2006/nasa_lunar_games.htm

:D

Snow joking matter ...

bertl

28-10-2010, 09:16 PM

"Man, this astronaut on the Moon didn't throw his hammer as far and high as someone threw a ball on Earth! This whole thing must be a fake!"

rodin

28-10-2010, 10:59 PM

"Man, this astronaut on the Moon didn't throw his hammer as far and high as someone threw a ball on Earth! This whole thing must be a fake!"

I am building a case here. Just another brick in the wall.

BTW what IS the expected difference in height for the same expended force Moon v Earth all other things being equal?

So if the initial upwards throw velocity was the same as on Earth, the height attained would be 6 times as much - a linear relationship with gravity difference of 6 times.

In other words on Earth our astronauts hammer throw would have made it up to just about level with the top of his spacesuit. Credible? I don't think so. Look at the effort expended

Astronaut Schmitt throws his hammer (Apollo 17) - YouTube

'Don't hit the LEM' :D

truegroup

28-10-2010, 11:19 PM

I am building a case here. Just another brick in the wall.
So, are we done with the bag drop then? Can't be bothered to answer the two VERY straightforward questions? We've seen your case, and it is pant shaped:D

BTW what IS the expected difference in height for the same expended force Moon v Earth all other things being equal?
All things equal 6x. Unencumbered. Not in a spacesuit. Not with less purchase on the surface.

In other words on Earth our astronauts hammer throw would have made it up to just about level with the top of his spacesuit. Credible? I don't think so. Look at the effort expended

In other words?

You have no idea what you are talking about. The hammer is being thrown on a flat trajectory AWAY from the direction of the camera at what looks like 30-45 degrees off straight(his final position clearly shows this!). You have NO idea at all how far it went. None. No way is he trying to throw it AS HIGH as he can.

eta: It takes 4 seconds for the hammer to reach its apex. 4 SECONDS! And you have the unbelievable conclusion it travelled 10 metres?!!! Mr Bean and his wiffy pants.
Mr Bean - Pants for every day - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yol9Sm8zFP0

rodin

29-10-2010, 07:52 PM

So, are we done with the bag drop then? Can't be bothered to answer the two VERY straightforward questions? We've seen your case, and it is pant shaped:D

Don't be ridiculous. Show us film run at correct speed. Around 1.7 x is best fit according to data. Then if the motion is 'comedy' I will back off on this for the time being

All things equal 6x. Unencumbered. Not in a spacesuit. Not with less purchase on the surface.

What spacesuit? And the kids were wearing thick winter apparel

In other words?

You have no idea what you are talking about. The hammer is being thrown on a flat trajectory AWAY from the direction of the camera at what looks like 30-45 degrees off straight(his final position clearly shows this!). You have NO idea at all how far it went. None. No way is he trying to throw it AS HIGH as he can.

eta: It takes 4 seconds for the hammer to reach its apex. 4 SECONDS! And you have the unbelievable conclusion it travelled 10 metres?!!! Mr Bean and his wiffy pants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yol9Sm8zFP0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yol9Sm8zFP0

It matters not how far it travelled the time of flight is determined by altitude attained. You don't get gravity yet do you? :D

How about an earth-gravity timed hammer throw to keep you out of mischief for a few minutes?

truegroup

29-10-2010, 09:43 PM

Don't be ridiculous.
You bloody started it:D The point being you hop from one thing to the next without any real resolution or closure. Not even an agree to disagree. :confused:

Show us film run at correct speed.
That would be the original footage;) Sped up x1.7 is a figure pulled out your bottom.

Around 1.7 x is best fit according to data. Then if the motion is 'comedy' I will back off on this for the time being
You have two questions on the table that you continually refuse to answer.
What height does the bag fall from?
What is it's initial velocity?

Then, as usual, I will do your donkey work for you!
http://www.newyorkemploymentlawyerblog.com/donkey.jpg

What spacesuit? And the kids were wearing thick winter apparel
The one worn by the astronaut:rolleyes: The one who is trying to get their footing in 1/6th gravity. That one!

It matters not how far it travelled the time of flight is determined by altitude attained. You don't get gravity yet do you? :D
So what, that is not being contended (and yes I now know this) - if nothing else (in all seriousness), our exchanges have educated me about the subtle nuances of gravity.;)

You are suggesting the trajectory is more vertical as per your drawing, yet it can be clearly seen the effort put into the throw suggests the angle of despatch is clearly lower and faster than what would follow your line. A flatter longer throw, perfectly in line with Lunar gravity.

1/ The object is thrown at a low trajectory and takes 4 seconds to reach its apex. That is 8 seconds flight time. The trajectory appears in the region of 30-40 degrees.

2/ The time of flight is determined both by angle and initial velocity. Altitude attained is the effect of initial velocity and angle of ascent against the gravity component(in this case 1.62m s^2 / height 10m / angle of ascent 35 degrees).
http://cnx.org/content/m13847/latest/
Features of projectile motion
The span of projectile motion in the vertical plane is determined by two factors, namely the speed of projection and angle of projection with respect to horizontal. These two factors together determine (i) how long does the projectile remain in air (time of flight, T) (ii) how far does the projectile go in the horizontal direction (range of projectile, R) and (iii) how high does the projectile reach (maximum height, H).

Further, the trajectory of the projectile is symmetric about a vertical line passing through the point of maximum height if point of projection and point of return fall on the same horizontal surface.

4/ Your drawing (and your comment about missing the LM) says you think the object is headed towards the LM rather than at an angle away from it. That is just daft. Look at the final position he ends up in, and the angle of his arm.

Stop wasting everyone's time with this. It's rubbish, and I think you are just chain pulling now.

tabea_blumenschein

30-10-2010, 05:39 AM

A couple of math lessons for Rodin.

First, where are you getting this 1.7 x figure from? Are you stealing answers from Jarrah White's paper?

The correct speed is in fact 245%, as truegroup has repeatedly told you. Allow me to demonstrate.

h = 1/2 * g(moon) * t(moon)^2

h = 1/2 * g(earth) * t(earth)^2

These equations both tell you the distance through which an object will fall (h) with acceleration due to gravity g, and freefall time t. If we allow the freefall distance h to be the same for the Earth and the Moon, then:

1/2 * g(moon) * t(moon)^2 = 1/2 * g(earth) * t(earth)^2

After some algebra:

t(moon) = sqrt[g(earth)/g(moon)] * t(earth)

Since g(earth) = 9.8 m/s^2 and g(moon) = 1.63 m/s^2:

t(moon) = sqrt(9.8/1.63) * t(earth)

t(moon) = 2.45199 * t(earth)

So the ratio is roughly 1:2.45, or (if we multiply by 2 and fudge that second number a bit) 2:5.

All this tells us is that, very roughly, every 2 frames of film shot on Earth would produce 5 frames if you slowed it down to simulate Lunar gravity. That works both ways: every 5 frames of "fake" Apollo footage (again very roughly) would need to be squeezed onto 2 frames to bring it back to what it's actually supposed to look like. That's 245% the actual speed of the footage, and like others keep pointing out, the astronauts end up looking like keystone kops because their motions are unrealistically fast.

I'll get to rodin's bag throw in a minute.

tabea_blumenschein

30-10-2010, 06:11 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7N-Sx-wOD0

(There is a video up there hope U can C it)

On the Moon of course shit goes MUCH higher and further...

(picture deleted)

...or does it? (Astro fully grown and for all we know an athlete)

First off, I deleted the wide picture so everyone could read my post without scrolling back and forth over and over. You can see that picture if you need to by clicking the link.

Right away we see that there's a mistake in rodin's estimate for distance. He (or she) is using rectangles to estimate the distances, and assumes the rectangles in the diagram are 2 meters in both height and width! Those aren't squares you're looking at, rodin!

If we estimate the base of the rectangle to be 1.5 meters, then we get a distance of 5*1.5 = 7.5 meters (EDIT: as opposed to the 10 meters horizontal distance that rodin gives). Let's go with that, alright?

There are several equations you can derive for ballistic motion. Three of them look like this:

t = 2 * v * sin(theta) / g

h = v^2 * [sin(theta)]^2 / 2g

x = v^2 * sin(2*theta) / g

The equations are for "ground-to-ground" parabolic motion just like you see in rodin's picture. The variables are: t = total "flight time", v is the initial velocity of the projectile, g is acceleration due to gravity, theta is the "takeoff angle" (measured from the horizontal), h is the maximum height reached, and x is the "range" or the horizontal distance travelled.

If you're willing to do a bit of algebra and a tiny bit of trig substituting with those equations, you can derive a couple of additional equations that will be useful to us:

t = sqrt(8 * h/g)

theta = arctan(g * t^2 / 2x)

We can use these two equations with the estimates we have to see whether that particular trajectory "makes sense" for a throw on the Moon or not. I emphasize here that the estimates we're using are very crude, so all we're looking for is whether our answers are "close enough".

Okay, the estimated flight time is:

t = sqrt(8 * 8 meters / 1.63 m/s^2)

t = ~6.3 seconds, or about 3.1 seconds to peak height and another 3.1 seconds to fall.

Rodin has it at closer to 4 seconds to peak height, but given the uncertainty in the data, I'd say we're good.

Now for the "takeoff angle". I'd expect it to compute to 76 degrees or so, as I demonstrate at the end of this post. Let's see if using the estimates with lunar gravity gives us a similar value:

theta = arctan(g * t^2 / 2x)

theta = arctan(1.63 m/s^2 * (6.3 s)^2 / 15 meters)

theta = arctan(4.31298)

theta = 76.9 degrees

How about that! :)

Why don't we estimate the velocity the object it had when it left the astronaut's hand while we're at it? From our list of ballistic trajectory equations:

t = 2 * v * sin(theta) / g

v = g * t / (2 * sin(theta))

v = 1.63 m/s^2 * 6.3 seconds / (2 * sin(76.9 degrees))

v = 5.27 meters per second (= ~17 feet per second)

I haven't had a chance to look at the video, is that in the right neighborhood (say, +/- 20% or so?)

I don't know, rodin, I assumed throughout those calculations that the throw was in lunar gravity and it looks like everything checks out to me! ;)

By the way, my guess for the "takeoff angle" at 76 degrees really was made before I worked out that equation. Here's how I did it. If you look at rodin's picture, you'll notice that the part of the parabola at the beginning of the throw is damn near a straight line, so we can use that with the sides of the two boxes to make a triangle. Do you see what I'm talking about when you look at the picture? Okay, the tangent of the angle at the bottom is the "far side" divided by the "adjacent side". The "far side" is about 1/3 the distance of the base of one of the rectangles, or 0.5 meters. The "adjacent side" is 2 meters. The tangent is the quotient of the two, or 0.25. The inverse tangent of 0.25 is 14 degrees, but the angle we're interested in is the angle between the horizontal and the red line, which is 90 degrees minus the angle in our "triangle". That's 90 - 14, or 76 degrees. See? I wasn't cheating! :D

I guess it makes more sense if you're fluent in trig!

rodin

30-10-2010, 01:21 PM

A couple of math lessons for Rodin.

First, where are you getting this 1.7 x figure from? Are you stealing answers from Jarrah White's paper?

Absolutely not. Worked it out for myself

The correct speed is in fact 245%, as truegroup has repeatedly told you. Allow me to demonstrate.

h = 1/2 * g(moon) * t(moon)^2

h = 1/2 * g(earth) * t(earth)^2

These equations both tell you the distance through which an object will fall (h) with acceleration due to gravity g, and freefall time t. If we allow the freefall distance h to be the same for the Earth and the Moon, then:

1/2 * g(moon) * t(moon)^2 = 1/2 * g(earth) * t(earth)^2

After some algebra:

t(moon) = sqrt[g(earth)/g(moon)] * t(earth)

Since g(earth) = 9.8 m/s^2 and g(moon) = 1.63 m/s^2:

t(moon) = sqrt(9.8/1.63) * t(earth)

t(moon) = 2.45199 * t(earth)

So the ratio is roughly 1:2.45, or (if we multiply by 2 and fudge that second number a bit) 2:5.

All this tells us is that, very roughly, every 2 frames of film shot on Earth would produce 5 frames if you slowed it down to simulate Lunar gravity. That works both ways: every 5 frames of "fake" Apollo footage (again very roughly) would need to be squeezed onto 2 frames to bring it back to what it's actually supposed to look like. That's 245% the actual speed of the footage, and like others keep pointing out, the astronauts end up looking like keystone kops because their motions are unrealistically fast.

I know the correct speed difference should be 2.45. I showed that on TG's 2.45x speeded up film the bag drop did not correspond to what you would expect from Earth gravity

On TG's film the drop takes a third of a second. It should take very close to half a second to fall the necessary 1+m

One unit is 12mm in the following pic. Strobe flash 20 times per second

First off, I deleted the wide picture so everyone could read my post without scrolling back and forth over and over. You can see that picture if you need to by clicking the link.

Right away we see that there's a mistake in rodin's estimate for distance. He (or she) is using rectangles to estimate the distances, and assumes the rectangles in the diagram are 2 meters in both height and width! Those aren't squares you're looking at, rodin!

No they are rectangles because the astronaut is throwing away from us and to our left, not just to the left

I am thinking in 3D while annotating on 2D. Here are the ratios in the rectangle

I did not plug numbers into trig equations to calculate whether flight time v height was commensurate with Moon g. I guessed they would make sure it was.

My contention is that the hammer 'throw' attains a height commensurate with a throw on Earth, and is ridiculously low for the Moon

truegroup

30-10-2010, 01:41 PM

My contention is that the hammer 'throw' attains a height commensurate with a throw on Earth, and is ridiculously low for the Moon

You reckon that is a 45 degree elevation on the throw? Really?:rolleyes:

You gonna answer the bag drop questions?

truegroup

30-10-2010, 01:41 PM

I did not plug numbers into trig equations to calculate whether flight time v height was commensurate with Moon g. I guessed they would make sure it was.

What, just like the bag drop? Cobblers again.

rodin

30-10-2010, 02:08 PM

You reckon that is a 45 degree elevation on the throw? Really?:rolleyes:

My dear TG

45 degrees refers not to the elevation but the vector in the plane of the surface of the set :D

Imaging you are looking North to the Astro. He throws it NW

http://www.memphis.edu/trac/images/Compass.jpg

You gonna answer the bag drop questions?

I think someone should check the AH math again. Then we can continue. Maybe I will do it but guess what - I now have to pick up 3 teenagers from a hard day's paintballing

truegroup

30-10-2010, 07:14 PM

My dear TG

45 degrees refers not to the elevation but the vector in the plane of the surface of the set :D

Imaging you are looking North to the Astro. He throws it NW
My dear Rodin, we damn well agree on something!!!

Now, kindly answer the two questions about the bag drop.

Then, to continue this latest escapade with the hammer, what angle from horizontal is he throwing it at? I say 35 degrees is a fair estimate.

I revised time of flight at 3.6 seconds and height attained at 10.5 metres. However, it is perfectly obvious that at such a low trajectory, most of the effort expended was in the horizontal vector.
I estimated distance thrown at 40 metres.

Now all we need is someone like tabea_blumenschein to work out the initial velocity for such a throw, then to substitute the figures to see what the Earth throw would require.

p.s. You really do not want to see the comedy moves of this one sped up, especially the backsteps just after the throw. Utterly ludicrous motion.

I did not plug numbers into trig equations to calculate whether flight time v height was commensurate with Moon g. I guessed they would make sure it was.

rodin

31-10-2010, 01:02 PM

My dear Rodin, we damn well agree on something!!!

That it was a set?

Now, kindly answer the two questions about the bag drop.

Can we have a re-statement of the questions?

Then, to continue this latest escapade with the hammer, what angle from horizontal is he throwing it at? I say 35 degrees is a fair estimate

O i dunno - 45 degrees maybe. The angle will have no effect on flight time. It is the height attained that determines this - and that is readily measurable to a decent degree

I revised time of flight at 3.6 seconds and height attained at 10.5 metres. However, it is perfectly obvious that at such a low trajectory, most of the effort expended was in the horizontal vector.
I estimated distance thrown at 40 metres.

Where do you get 10.5 metres from? The apex is s wee bit less than 4x height of astro. There will be a little perspective shrinking I guess but the camera seems a long way from subject matter. There is really no way of knowing how long the throw was other than looking at posture of astro. Again I guess about 45 degrees turned away from us - if 60 degrees away, say the distance thrown would be something under 20m

rodin

31-10-2010, 01:33 PM

Now all we need is someone like tabea_blumenschein to work out the initial velocity for such a throw, then to substitute the figures to see what the Earth throw would require.

p.s. You really do not want to see the comedy moves of this one sped up, especially the backsteps just after the throw. Utterly ludicrous motion.

t = √9.8 = a bit over 3 which is also how I see the time. So it does appear that the throw could fall within the bounds of correct Lunar gravity, though the measurement error could be as high as 25% at this stage.

Your numbers fall within this ESD also

I revised time of flight at 3.6 seconds and height attained at 10.5 metres.

t = √(2y/g)

t**2 = 2y/g

g = 2y/t**2 = 21/12.96 = 1.62

Now I know where you got 10.5 m from :D

Some more comedy motion

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.!

TG can U see individual frames? In how many frames can you actually see the hammer? I can only pick it up against the black. I would like to plot v time the path of the hammer.

truegroup

31-10-2010, 01:42 PM

That it was a set?
:rolleyes: Big set - and stupid contention.
That it was NW in direction, and your remark about , 'mind the LM' was MBP.

Can we have a re-statement of the questions?
I've asked them about 5 times and bolded them each time!

What is your estimate of the bag drop height? - please refer to the diagram I showed. I estimate 1m and foreshortened slightly by coming up a slight gradient of 10percent.

What was the initial velocity of the bag as it flies out of the holdall whilst the astronaut is moving ?

O i dunno - 45 degrees maybe. The angle will have no effect on flight time. It is the height attained that determines this - and that is readily measurable to a decent degree
That is measurable to a very accurate degree. I'll split the difference with you and call it 40 degrees.

Where do you get 10.5 metres from? The apex is s wee bit less than 4x height of astro. There will be a little perspective shrinking I guess but the camera seems a long way from subject matter. There is really no way of knowing how long the throw was other than looking at posture of astro. Again I guess about 45 degrees turned away from us - if 60 degrees away, say the distance thrown would be something under 20m

The flight time is clear from the moment he releases to apex(I slowed it down and cut it). THAT is how I get the height.

Anyway, all of it irelevant. The bulk of his effort is in the horizontal plane.

1/ We need the initial velocity calculated to achieve a 10.5m height at 40 degrees ascending (even though it is about 35 degrees) and 1.62m s^2.

2/ Then apply that same velocity to Earth gravity for comparable height.

3/ Then apply same height and angle to Earth gravity to determine what would be initial velocity on Earth to achieve the same height as the Moon.

Maybe then you could remotely demonstrate an inconsistency, but he's in a suit, his footing is not good as witnessed by what heppens to him once he releases the hammer, and he is throwing it sideways.

NEXT.

rodin

31-10-2010, 01:44 PM

http://img.youtube.com/vi/3T4Opy4BzZo/default.jpg

Comedic or not the time taken for that arm movement is commensurate with what you would expect from a throwing effort

truegroup

31-10-2010, 02:03 PM

t = √(2y/g)

t**2 = 2y/g

g = 2y/t**2 = 21/12.96 = 1.62

Now I know where you got 10.5 m from :D

Some more comedy motion
Your 'comedy motion' on olympic hammer throws looks normal when you look at the massive spins and effort. The Moon throw was ludicrous motion when sped up.

TG can U see individual frames? In how many frames can you actually see the hammer? I can only pick it up against the black. I would like to plot v time the path of the hammer.
One or two frames at most, a momentary glint and the hint of smudge against the mountain in the distance.

truegroup

31-10-2010, 02:04 PM

http://img.youtube.com/vi/3T4Opy4BzZo/default.jpg

Comedic or not the time taken for that arm movement is commensurate with what you would expect from a throwing effort
Comedic.

The backward hops afterwards are what is excessively odd.

truegroup

31-10-2010, 05:31 PM

That is measurable to a very accurate degree. I'll split the difference with you and call it 40 degrees.

1/ We need the initial velocity calculated to achieve a 10.5m height at 40 degrees ascending (even though it is about 35 degrees) and 1.62m s^2.

To get Moon height on Earth would require 22.25m per second initial velocity equates to 2.45 relative ballistic motion.

It all looks perfectly normal to me. Unless you have some more 'evidence' to present on this, I can't see any way you can question a 40 degree throw that ties in with all the figures.

rodin

01-11-2010, 03:46 PM

Your 'comedy motion' on olympic hammer throws looks normal when you look at the massive spins and effort. The Moon throw was ludicrous motion when sped up.

One or two frames at most, a momentary glint and the hint of smudge against the mountain in the distance.

I need a good free frame grabber so I can calibrate better. Any suggestions? The several I have downlioaded so far don't seem to do what I want which is to step thru frames one at a time, preferably with timecode of some sort so the rate can be quantified

truegroup

01-11-2010, 07:09 PM

I need a good free frame grabber so I can calibrate better. Any suggestions? The several I have downlioaded so far don't seem to do what I want which is to step thru frames one at a time, preferably with timecode of some sort so the rate can be quantified

Download a 15 day trial on 'videoredo' - it's dead easy to use and steps a frame by frame on mpegs.

Remember the extra frames from conversion utilities, and factor them in across a span of 5(where it is 25 to 30 conversion).

http://www.videoredo.com/en/index.htm

Unfortunately the programs that do the bizz, cost money.

bertl

02-11-2010, 05:52 PM

Download a 15 day trial on 'videoredo' - it's dead easy to use and steps a frame by frame on mpegs.

Remember the extra frames from conversion utilities, and factor them in across a span of 5(where it is 25 to 30 conversion).

http://www.videoredo.com/en/index.htm

Unfortunately the programs that do the bizz, cost money.
You can also use the free VirtualDub for that.

http://www.virtualdub.org/

Alternatively, if you can get your hands on an earlier version of VideoMach (2.7.2 or lower), you can use that to see the seperate frames. (It used to be free for non-commercial users, but nowadays it seems to not be free anymore.)

Being a cheap amateur brickfilmer I have to rely on this kind of software to do my hobby. :D

rodin

03-11-2010, 09:47 AM

OK guys will check out next time tranche I get. I used to have a free frame grabber but you must be right - can't get one now.

I bet AH are getting impatient - am I banned there yet? :D

jamesc

03-11-2010, 04:33 PM

Apologies for going off topic but did not want to start a new thread on the Moon ;

quote;
"Does anyone else find it strange that when they released the findings of the debris analysis (from the LCROSS controlled crash into the Cabeus Crater) they found trace amounts of silver:confused:, calcium, magnesium, up to a billion gallons of water, and (get this) liquid mercury at the same abundance as the water on one of the poles? :confused:What is potentially a billion of gallons of liquid mercury doing at the South Pole of the moon?" :confused:

"Dr Kurt Retherford, a fellow expert from Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, one of the scientists operating the LRO instruments, said the biggest surprise was finding mercury at about the same abundance as water. "Its toxicity could present a challenge for human exploration," he said;"

brucel

04-11-2010, 04:50 AM

There's only one part where they cut off the camera. There are two cuts that astro probably did himself.

Even then, there's nothing fishy about this footage.
If you look at astro's video from 7:45 onward, this gives a perfect example of how strange the lunar landscape can appear. It shows a large mountain in the background, which looks like a hill, and even though it seems like they should be getting closer, they don't, because it's actually several miles away.

yup.
bob ross would have done better had nasa hired him to paint the fake moon background scene..
the lackof detail/definition in the way it was drawn made it stand out like a sore thumb..i agree!!

You'll also notice, there's no trickery there. There's no broken landscape between the foreground, mid, and background, and everything matches up.

The big thing here as well is the lighting: It never changes. They travel for at least 30 minutes (depending on how fast the footage is sped up.) and the lighting stays the same. There's nothing in the foreground or background that shows any kind of alternative light source was used, as side from the sun.

And the multiple light source claim that all these hoaxers keep talking about debunks its self.

bullt!tz.. you have no idea whatsoever how much distance is covered nor how long it took
watch the video below it's IDENTICAL to the one TG posted, you'll notice the same near/far
optical illusion exactly the same as nasa's foreground "gold-painted camera" & same lighting
throughout...can you determine how much area is covered ? or how long it took ?

No where in the Apollo footage has there ever been two sets of shadows coming from anything.

again, bullt!tz..unparallel set of shadow found and debunk!!!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059344311#post1059344311

apollo_gnomon

04-11-2010, 05:12 AM

Apparently unparallel shadows caused by wide-angle lens perspective is very different from multiple shadows coming from the same object.

moving finger

04-11-2010, 05:51 AM

Apologies for going off topic but did not want to start a new thread on the Moon ;

quote;
"Does anyone else find it strange that when they released the findings of the debris analysis (from the LCROSS controlled crash into the Cabeus Crater) they found trace amounts of silver:confused:, calcium, magnesium, up to a billion gallons of water, and (get this) liquid mercury at the same abundance as the water on one of the poles? :confused:What is potentially a billion of gallons of liquid mercury doing at the South Pole of the moon?" :confused:

"Dr Kurt Retherford, a fellow expert from Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, one of the scientists operating the LRO instruments, said the biggest surprise was finding mercury at about the same abundance as water. "Its toxicity could present a challenge for human exploration," he said;"

Not surprising at all - these elements exist all over the solar system. It wouldn't necessarily be liquid though, Mercury freezes at about -38 Celsius (tho this figure varies depending on who you ask), which is considerably warmer than the crater it examined. It's also possible that the element just happened to be in the area they hit, rather than universally distributed.

bertl

04-11-2010, 03:00 PM

again, bullt!tz..unparallel set of shadow found and debunk!!!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059344311#post1059344311
I'm wondering what your explanation for the converging shadows is, brucel.

His 'debunk' was just him telling lies. I asked him about it the post below, he then posted some 20's black and white video that looked even less like a Lunar Rover than the moving newsdesk and completely ignored my question about it!:D

brucel

05-11-2010, 06:32 AM

Apparently unparallel shadows caused by wide-angle lens perspective is very different from multiple shadows coming from the same object.

wide angle lens--my foot. :D
wide angle lens don't work like that, it's not possible for any lens to pick a shadow from the left
side [of the lunar rover] and make it point upward/leaning right then picks another separate set
of shadows that's on the right side of the rover within proximity of the first & make those point
left, nope! not happening..what we have here is clearly the result of multiple lightsource

wide angle lens--my foot. :D
wide angle lens don't work like that, it's not possible for any lens to pick a shadow from the left
side [of the lunar rover] and make it point upward/leaning right then picks another separate set
of shadows that's on the right side of the rover within proximity to the first & make those point
left, nope! not happening..what we have here is clearly the result of multiple lightsource

end of discussion..

as for the “same object casting multiple shadows” [strawman!!!]
Shadows on the left pointing to the right, and shadows on the right pointing to the left, huh... You mean like this?

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/stuff2/10-11/convergz.jpg

(Source: Converging shadows | Flickr - Photo Sharing! )

ETA:
secondary lightsource.."single lightsource officially debunk"
So why isn't there a second shadow of either the rocks or the rover/camera? Have you put any reasonable thought in this at all?

brucel

05-11-2010, 07:17 AM

Shadows on the left pointing to the right, and shadows on the right pointing to the left, huh... You mean like this?

So why isn't there a second shadow of either the rocks or the rover/camera? Have you put any reasonable thought in this at all?

honestly, bertl. that picture above looks photoshoped :cool:
no leaves on the ground, c'mon whats up with that..did the nasa photographer remove them ??

moving finger

05-11-2010, 07:21 AM

wide angle lens--my foot. :D
wide angle lens don't work like that, it's not possible for any lens to pick a shadow from the left
side [of the lunar rover] and make it point upward/leaning right then picks another separate set
of shadows that's on the right side of the rover within proximity of the first & make those point
left, nope! not happening..what we have here is clearly the result of multiple lightsource

But seriously, the shadows are not parallel because of this thing named "perspective". You should definitely look into that.

brucel

05-11-2010, 08:00 AM

Haha, nice one.

But seriously, the shadows are not parallel because of this thing named "perspective". You should definitely look into that.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2474/debunk.jpg

alright. this should help explain the anomolies found in the rover video. the red arrow points at the
brightspot on the gold painted camera (optical illusion's focal point) lightsource is at an angle behind
the camera possibly mounted overhead or on the rover itself...green arrow is a different lightsource
again coming from behind consistent with how the antenna is able to cast its shadow ahead/forward
of the vehicle...purple arrow is pointing left cause rock pebbles are casting left shadows..

im not the best at making graphs, i know. :D however it is what it is...therefore, end of discussion.

bertl

05-11-2010, 08:06 AM

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2474/debunk.jpg

alright. this should help explain the anomolies found in the rover video.
Yep - that's all perspective.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/stuff2/10-11/0phase2.jpg

(Source: http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase.htm)

brucel

05-11-2010, 08:10 AM

Just so we know what we're discussing:

Multiple light sources = multiple shadows. It is physically impossible to light two different things on the same object with two different lights and only have one shadow.

Try it. Get yourself two torches and try it.

ever had a yearbook picture taken, how many SHADOWS are in those ?..
obviously nasa did not use amateur photographers, but needless to say 'mistakes' were made.

brucel

05-11-2010, 08:25 AM

Yep - that's all perspective.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/stuff2/10-11/0phase2.jpg

(Source: http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase.htm)

it's not clear who took the pic., aside from that all the shadows in the foreground and background
even at the top of the hill all appear to be consistent...unlike, to rover pic which points to several
lightsources causing objects near and far to cast odd/unparallel shadows.

truegroup

05-11-2010, 10:35 AM

ever had a yearbook picture taken, how many SHADOWS are in those ?..
obviously nasa did not use amateur photographers, but needless to say 'mistakes' were made.

Anyone claiming multiple light sources without corresponding multiple shadows is not sufficiently objective or dare I say it SMART enough to contribute anything but noise to this thread.

@ MoFi

You have the patience of a saint

apollo_gnomon

05-11-2010, 02:39 PM

Anyone claiming multiple light sources without corresponding multiple shadows is not sufficiently objective or dare I say it SMART enough to contribute anything but noise to this thread.

@ MoFi

You have the patience of a saint

LOL! You know you're hoax evidence is weak when another HB debunks you!

Brucel, you could really learn a lot from Rodin. He's actually done real work - calculations, research, graphics, photo analysis, presenting his case on multiple fora including the harsh world of Bad Astronomy Forums and the notoriously overeducated apollohoax.net crowd. If you want to step up your game you could do a lot worse than to emulate him.

rodin

05-11-2010, 02:55 PM

LOL! You know you're hoax evidence is weak when another HB debunks you!

It's not that good. :D

truegroup

05-11-2010, 03:12 PM

Brucel, you could really learn a lot from Rodin. He's actually done real work - calculations, research, graphics, photo analysis, presenting his case on multiple fora including the harsh world of Bad Astronomy Forums and the notoriously overeducated apollohoax.net crowd. If you want to step up your game you could do a lot worse than to emulate him.

He's trying. Lines on pictures:D The fact they have nowt to do with reality is neither here nor there.;)

moving finger

05-11-2010, 06:15 PM

@ MoFi

You have the patience of a saint

LOL!

Self-editing - marvellous for the karma ;)

truegroup

05-11-2010, 06:51 PM

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2474/debunk.jpg

alright. this should help explain the anomolies found in the rover video. the red arrow points at the
brightspot on the gold painted camera (optical illusion's focal point) lightsource is at an angle behind
the camera possibly mounted overhead or on the rover itself...green arrow is a different lightsource
again coming from behind consistent with how the antenna is able to cast its shadow ahead/forward
of the vehicle...purple arrow is pointing left cause rock pebbles are casting left shadows..

im not the best at making graphs, i know. :D however it is what it is...therefore, end of discussion .

Bruce, I think it only fair to point out that your green arrow is not the shadow from the antenna, it is the shadow from that chunk of Gold (colour TV camera) and as can be seen, one light source, nice and consistent.

Watch the video from 6.23 onwards. The sun even puts a nice shadow on the left of the front camera, as the LR steers right. Meanwhile as it steers right, lo and behold all the shadows change accordingly.
Powerful old light that Sun!:rolleyes:

I would say end of discussion but you don't have the words, "you are quite correct" in your vocabulary.:D

wouldn't two light sources produce two shadows? I think its pretty clear there is only one shadow for each object so its a matter of terrain as to where the shadows are falling.

myth busters did a pretty clear "debunking" for the shadow thing on their show.

bertl

05-11-2010, 07:16 PM

wouldn't two light sources produce two shadows?
Not in brucel's world, apparently.

moving finger

05-11-2010, 07:28 PM

To illustrate the point further with screenshots from the same video.

See how in this one the rover is side on to the light source and everything is lined up beautifully. Nice sharp shadows, no duplicates

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2897/camera1y.jpg

How many light sources in this visor?

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5383/camera2h.jpg

Now this one should do it:

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9360/camera3.jpg

Look on the camera. See the white wire coming out? Look down on the ground. See the shadow from that wire? Now work backwards and picture where the light source is. One light source behind the astronaut's head (I believe the image is from the suit camera) creating a shadow on the ground of the antenna and the camera, lined up as they should be. Draw some arrows on if you like.

Not, absolutely utterly and totally not, a different light source for the camera and a different one for the antenna. One light source, roughly 93 million miles away. End of discussion.

brucel

05-11-2010, 08:39 PM

We can also look at your knowledge of wide angle lenses while we're here.

Is this building falling over?

are these window frames bent?

Is the Earth really this curved?

[/IMG]

is my nutsack wrinkly ? :)

relevance you ask..

umm, you see! all the manipulated imagery evidence i posted were taken w/
a curved lens drawing striking similarities to the lunar rover scene above..wait!
wait! a minute there sir your wrinkly nutsack may look bent out of shape-n-all
but we both know its not the lunar rover furthermore curved lens on your nuts
is not the same lens used to film the rover scene now is it ? you are just piling
up one strawman argument after another arent you, mate ?

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNE/UNE004/u17167561.jpg

moving finger

05-11-2010, 08:47 PM

is my nutsack wrinkly ? :)

relevance you ask..

umm, you see! all the manipulated imagery evidence i posted were taken w/
a curved lens drawing striking similarities to the lunar rover scene above..wait!
wait! a minute there sir your wrinkly nutsack may look bent out of shape-n-all
but we both know its not the lunar rover furthermore curved lens on your nuts
is not the same lens used to film the rover scene now is it ? you are just piling
up one strawman argument after another arent you, mate ?

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/UNE/UNE004/u17167561.jpg

And you're being a dickhead.

brucel

05-11-2010, 09:14 PM

can't believe i forgot all about this post i made earlier on this very thread..time for me to debunk this
"never has been one object casting more than one shadow from apollo pics" nonesense..here in
the pic below, we see astros body is FULLY BLOCKING the camera fasten to his spacesuit (forming one
object)...so now the question is, what is this appendage & why is it casting an inconsistent shadow
to astros body posture in relation to incoming lightsource's path..??...

single object casting more than one shadow is officially debunk!!! :cool:

yep. let's go back & examine this image a little closer..
going by the light source's path from "behind" what is this reflection ? :eek:

EDIT: How would this be a second shadow anyways? How would the lighting set up be in your assessment of the situation?

brucel

05-11-2010, 09:49 PM

Uh, brucel - that would be the astronaut's left arm.

EDIT: How would this be a second shadow anyways? How would the lighting set up be in your assessment of the situation?

no. it's not. :D
i suppose by the codebook a mockery strategy is an order since this appears to be
the BEST explanation you can thinkof..the best you could do ??..countdown begins

5-4-3-2-1- i'll even start it for you 'astronaut has an arm growing outov his neck.'

lol

bertl

05-11-2010, 10:06 PM

no. it's not. :D
Hahaha, are you serious brucel? Of course it is.

Here's a cutout of the astronaut in the picture (on a pink background for contrast).
http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/stuff2/10-11/astrocut-1.png

Here's the same cutout, only now the astronaut has been turned into a shade of grey.
http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/stuff2/10-11/astrocut-2.png

Here's that cutout flipped horizontally, next to the astronaut's shadow. I've changed the height a bit to make the cutout match the shadow a bit better.
http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/stuff2/10-11/astrocut-3.png

Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

truegroup

05-11-2010, 10:07 PM

no. it's not. :D
i suppose by the codebook a mockery strategy is an order since this appears to be
the BEST explanation you can thinkof..the best you could do ??..countdown begins

5-4-3-2-1- i'll even start it for you 'astronaut has an arm growing outov his neck.'

lol

It's his elbow you cretin.

moving finger

05-11-2010, 10:11 PM

The original: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-114-18423HR.jpg

Now, what's your problem with the shadow?

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4029/astroshadow.jpg

There are definitely two there now., and you really do have an issue with perspective don't you.

Edit: Great minds bertl, great minds... ;)

bertl

05-11-2010, 10:17 PM

Nice, moving finger. Instead of cutting out the astronaut, you cut out the shadow. Really effective.

apollo_gnomon

05-11-2010, 10:21 PM

no. it's not. :D
i suppose by the codebook a mockery strategy is an order since this appears to be
the BEST explanation you can thinkof..the best you could do ??..countdown begins

5-4-3-2-1- i'll even start it for you 'astronaut has an arm growing outov his neck.'

lol

your white text thing is very silly. Why do you do it?

bertl

05-11-2010, 10:34 PM

Brucel's whole mockery thing is quite ironic at this point. I find it incredibly hard not to mock him for this latest "argument" he brought up.

ashikenshin

05-11-2010, 10:38 PM

Ok I officially don't get this. So, whats the hoaxers point? what's wrong with the shadow, to me it looks like a completely innocent shadow of the astronaut standing there. Of course its going to look a little messed up since its not a flat ground where its being proyected. I really don't get it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the shadow to someone with a normally functioning cerebral cortex. So you have to take into consideration the person who presented the hoax "evidence."

rodin

06-11-2010, 09:06 PM

can't believe i forgot all about this post i made earlier on this very thread..time for me to debunk this
"never has been one object casting more than one shadow from apollo pics" nonesense..here in
the pic below, we see astros body is FULLY BLOCKING the camera fasten to his spacesuit (forming one
object)...so now the question is, what is this appendage & why is it casting an inconsistent shadow
to astros body posture in relation to incoming lightsource's path..??...

single object casting more than one shadow is officially debunk!!! :cool:
Bruce do you really think Kubrick wouldn't get the shadows right? :D

truegroup

06-11-2010, 11:24 PM

Bruce do you really think Kubrick wouldn't get the shadows right? :D

Or the bag drops:D

For the 10th time - or are we done with it now????

What is your estimate of the bag drop height? - please refer to the diagram I showed. I estimate 1m and foreshortened slightly by coming up a slight gradient of 10percent.

What was the initial velocity of the bag as it flies out of the holdall whilst the astronaut is moving ?

adilbert

07-11-2010, 02:51 AM

Or the bag drops:D

For the 10th time - or are we done with it now????

What is your estimate of the bag drop height? - please refer to the diagram I showed. I estimate 1m and foreshortened slightly by coming up a slight gradient of 10percent.

What was the initial velocity of the bag as it flies out of the holdall whilst the astronaut is moving ?

You aren't going to get an answer to this because he has painted himself into a corner. HBs alternatively claim either wires or slowed down footage to try and explain the Apollo footage whilst dismissing experiments such as the hammer and feather drop as 'staged'. So an 'unstaged' event such as the bag drop clearly demonstrating non earth (i.e. lunar) gravity is a huge problem. Speeding the film up x2.45 times to get back to earth gravity illustrates the absurdity of the proposition. If you'll excuse the use of HB hyperbole, it's undebunkable proof that the footage is real.
Care to concede the point Rodin? No I thought not.

rodin

07-11-2010, 05:12 PM

You aren't going to get an answer to this because he has painted himself into a corner. HBs alternatively claim either wires or slowed down footage to try and explain the Apollo footage whilst dismissing experiments such as the hammer and feather drop as 'staged'. So an 'unstaged' event such as the bag drop clearly demonstrating non earth (i.e. lunar) gravity is a huge problem. Speeding the film up x2.45 times to get back to earth gravity illustrates the absurdity of the proposition. If you'll excuse the use of HB hyperbole, it's undebunkable proof that the footage is real.
Care to concede the point Rodin? No I thought not.

That's a load of crap. In my time not yours I will pick up the ball again.

truegroup

07-11-2010, 06:25 PM

That's a load of crap. In my time not yours I will pick up the ball again.

Hopefully the ball will contain the 2 answers you wilfully seem to ignore.:D

adilbert

07-11-2010, 07:23 PM

That's a load of crap. In my time not yours I will pick up the ball again.

I look forward to your explanation. Bag on a wire perhaps? Alien technology?

You know, when in a hole you could always stop digging......

rodin

07-11-2010, 10:34 PM

Or the bag drops:D

For the 10th time - or are we done with it now????

What is your estimate of the bag drop height? - please refer to the diagram I showed. I estimate 1m and foreshortened slightly by coming up a slight gradient of 10percent.

What was the initial velocity of the bag as it flies out of the holdall whilst the astronaut is moving ?

About a metre I guess. Your AH source estimated a bit more than that

Zero. In the downwards direction It dropped was not thrown

Like I say I want to frame step that motion and also the hammer throw etc, If i can place SOME points on the parabolic curve time v height I can best fit the whole curve. Then we can get ESD's down to meaningful and see if those two motions really DO agree with Lunar gravity. I suspect they don't

truegroup

07-11-2010, 11:08 PM

About a metre I guess. Your AH source estimated a bit more than that
My source was for the maths not the guess.
My guess was always a metre and slightly shortened by the slope.

Zero. In the downwards direction It dropped was not thrown

Mr Bean's smelly white wiffy pants:D You know full well that even a nominal initial velocity puts that perfectly in line with Lunar motion, and to say zero is utter bollocks. The worst bollocks you have come up with so far. You say it because you know it destroys your case.

The astronaut is leaning forward and moving forward with the holdall bouncing up and down. NO downward motion at all imparted? Rubbish.

eta: I've just replayed the start-drop moment over and over. It begins as his right leg bangs in to the ground.

This way you can do some serious research on it without having to do jump through some strange hoops (like taking a screenshot of every frame and putting it together in a grid in a word processor). It's a pretty effortless process, won't cost you a cent and it makes frame-by-frame analysis a joy.

This way you can do some serious research on it without having to do jump through some strange hoops (like taking a screenshot of every frame and putting it together in a grid in a word processor). It's a pretty effortless process, won't cost you a cent and it makes frame-by-frame analysis a joy.

Bertl I know you are up to speed in this dept - this week I make time to jump through the hoops to easier frame analysis as per yr suggestions. I hear we might get snowed in latter part of the week....

rodin

08-11-2010, 02:04 PM

...

eta: I've just replayed the start-drop moment over and over. It begins as his right leg bangs in to the ground.

I am aware of the necessity to get the initial acceleration correct and how this may be hard to pinpoint. That is why I prefer parabola analyses - they are much more precise (more so than BAUT and AH will admit IMO)

I guess it will have to wait til I can get a better handle on the drop via a proper time/height plot. PS you should have said you were being selective in which bit of that AH calculation you agreed with, and which you disagreed with. I should have learned to be wary by now of the OPM's you bring in to support the Apollo case.

truegroup

08-11-2010, 02:31 PM

I am aware of the necessity to get the initial acceleration correct and how this may be hard to pinpoint.
But you postulate the least likely of all likely options. Zero.

That is why I prefer parabola analyses - they are much more precise (more so than BAUT and AH will admit IMO)

IMO you have failed to take into account the COG change and interaction with the PLSS on the John Young jump, it has momentum imparted to it during the up part of the jump, and still carries the reverse of it when the feet touch the ground. ie. although the ballistic motion attributed to his feet has completed, overall there is still part of the downward motion in the PLSS(moves a frame or so after contact).

PS you should have said you were being selective in which bit of that AH calculation you agreed with, and which you disagreed with. I should have learned to be wary by now of the OPM's you bring in to support the Apollo case.

Nope, that was the ONLY bit you came back to me about, but you didn't ever comment on its conclusion - it's conclusion WAS my point, the maths demonstrated it:
Since we have defined the positive direction to be downwards, this means that in order for this video to have been filmed on earth, the bag must have had an initial velocity in the range of approx 1.8 to 3.4 ms-1 in an upwards direction. From the video this clearly isn't the case.

Conclusion - the video can not have been filmed in a vacuum on Earth

So the bag must have had an inital downwards velocity in the range of approx 0.3 to 1.3 ms-1. The bag started rolling in between frame 1:19 and 1:23 and started falling at 2:06, a total of 7-11 frames (approx 0.25 - 0.5 seconds), so it's not unreasonable to expect an initial downward velocity in this range.

Conclusion - the fall of the bag in this video is not anomalous with the video being shot on the moon

neither of you answered my question, the astronaut object and its shadow dont
match!!! 'cutoff appendage' is inconsistent to whats being claimed to be his arm
also, the little photoshop/image manipulation you guys did only prove onething!!!
that you guys are really good at altering images then later present them as
authentic/evidence....like post #1539.

bertl

12-11-2010, 04:35 AM

neither of you answered my question, the astronaut object and its shadow dont
match!!! 'cutoff appendage' is inconsistent to whats being claimed to be his arm
also, the little photoshop/image manipulation you guys did only prove onething!!!
That the appendage in the shadow is at the same place as the left arm of the astronaut.
that you guys are really good at altering images then later present them as
authentic/evidence....like post #1539.
Prove it. Put up or shut up.

The image I posted in post #1539 can be found on the following page on Flickr.

Converging shadows | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

It was uploaded over three and a half years ago, and I found it using a search for "shadows converging" on Google Image Search. You can do this search yourself, you'll find lots of nice examples that show shadows that are converging. So in order for your allegation to be correct, I would have either had to travel back in time, hack that dude's account and upload a photoshopped photograph. Or I would have had to somehow hack the Flickr website and insert the image. Feel free to contact the photographer and ask about the photograph.

Brucel, are the three images on the following page photoshopped, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(visual)

brucel

12-11-2010, 05:03 AM

That the appendage in the shadow is at the same place as the left arm of the astronaut.

Prove it. Put up or shut up.

The image I posted in post #1539 can be found on the following page on Flickr.

It was uploaded over three and a half years ago, and I found it using a search for "shadows converging" on Google Image Search. You can do this search yourself, you'll find lots of nice examples that show shadows that are converging. So in order for your allegation to be correct, I would have either had to travel back in time, hack that dude's account and upload a photoshopped photograph. Or I would have had to somehow hack the Flickr website and insert the image. Feel free to contact the photographer and ask about the photograph.

Brucel, are the three images on the following page photoshopped, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(visual)

bullsh!t.
having had the flickr account three-n-half years ago to upload the image isn't an option, huh
yuno how many e-mail accounts i have. one from work one for ebay stuff mostly get junkmail
in that one no need for me to continue you get the point!!! so call "converging shadows" and
wiki pics are totally different from the one you posted-so how you even comparing them ? :confused:

again, explain the severe/broken limb...IF the appendage is his arm why is it broken ?

bertl

12-11-2010, 05:27 AM

bullsh!t.
having had the flickr account three-n-half years ago to upload the image isn't an option, huh
yuno how many e-mail accounts i have. one from work one for ebay stuff mostly get junkmail
in that one no need for me to continue you get the point!!!
Hahaha, this is ridiculous. You seem to be saying that I photoshopped this picture three and a half years ago and uploaded it to Flickr under a different account (which, by the way, is still actively uploading photographs). Serious claims need serious evidence, and you have no proof of this. You just seem to be "oh yeah you could have done it totally" thinking that's enough. It might be enough evidence in your fantasy world, but in the real world, it's not.

If you are so sure I photoshopped that photograph and uploaded it three and a half years ago, then why don't you... prove it?
so call "converging shadows" and wiki pics are totally different from the one you posted-so how you even comparing them ? :confused:
The train tracks should be parallel; instead, they are converging. The shadows should be parallel; instead, they are converging. Sensing a pattern, here?
again, explain the severe/broken limb...IF the appendage is his arm why is it broken ?
It is not. There's a small difference in the shapes of the astronaut and his shadow; this is because the shadow is a two dimensional representation of the three dimensional shape of the astronaut. This same 2D/3D principle can be seen in the following picture, where a perfectly octogonal traffic sign has a warped shadow.

http://en.fotolia.com/id/12622939

On the whole, the astronaut's silhouette and the astronaut's shadow match up pretty great.

Here's another photograph I found using Google's Image Search, this time of a woman on a beach. Look closely at the woman's left hand, then to the shadow of her left hand. The shadow is an "opened" hand, while the actual woman has her hand closed more. On top of that we can see light peeking through her legs, while in the shadow it's one big black blob.

It's amazing how many sock puppet account I must have on Flickr. You'd almost think half of the content uploaded to Flickr is uploaded by me! Wow!

truegroup

12-11-2010, 11:10 AM

neither of you answered my question, the astronaut object and its shadow dont
match!!! 'cutoff appendage' is inconsistent to whats being claimed to be his arm

His arm is bent and his arm is just off perpendicular to the angle of the Sun. The shadow is of his elbow and his arm flattened out (from the perspective of the Sun).

What is your contention here? The astronaut doesn't have a shadow and they made a mistake adding one? or? What have you discovered Bruce? The holy grail hoax proof?

Get a clue.

moving finger

12-11-2010, 01:37 PM

neither of you answered my question, the astronaut object and its shadow dont
match!!! 'cutoff appendage' is inconsistent to whats being claimed to be his arm
also, the little photoshop/image manipulation you guys did only prove onething!!!
that you guys are really good at altering images then later present them as
authentic/evidence....like post #1539.

More bullshit.

It's his arm. I altered nothing on the image. I took the original's shadow, copied it, inverted it, height matched it, that's it. Go back and see if you can find any aspect of the original underlying image that it is different. You won't be able to, I guarantee it.

What are you suggesting? That most of his shadow is fine but only his arm has been added later? That they managed to edit out a shadow and yet still match the ground underneath a few decades before this was possible on digital images never mind film? Did the also go over the ENTIRE image and edit every other shadow on there to be consistent?

You've gone "OOOOH LOOK LOOK EVERYBODY SOMETHING WEIRD", then used that as justification for a nonsensical theory without actually suggesting how the image was really produced in your opinion.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a couple of hundred email accounts to create to use in answering an argument I might have in 2013.

jamesc

13-11-2010, 06:38 PM

Not wanting to start another thread on the moon and a bit of topic but just thought this was interesting enough to include here, apologies if some feel it is not.Found this image showing something in the Zeeman (crater) on the Moon.Not saying this is a genuine anomaly but the smudge doesn't exist on the photos taken by Clementine, only in the images created by the old Clementine image browser.So this could be just a smudge created by the old Clementine image browser and nothing else.:confused:

Zeeman (crater) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Zeeman (crater) Coordinates 75.2°S 134.8°WCoordinates: 75.2°S 134.8°W Diameter 184 km Depth Unknown Colongitude 135° at sunrise Eponym Pieter Zeeman Zeeman is a lunar impact crater located on the far side of the Moon near its south pole. It is not directly visible from the Earth.

To the northwest of Zeeman lies the crater Numerov. Southeast of the rim is the crater Ashbrook. The outer rim of Zeeman is eroded somewhat irregularly, with considerable variation in width of the inner slopes. The crater Zeeman Y lies across the northern wall, reaching almost to the relatively flat interior floor. In the western rim is a small crater that joins a gash that runs down to the floor. The surface of the interior is pock-marked by many tiny craterlets, and worn crater features. There is a low central rise, offset to the southeast of the interior mid-point.

Not wanting to start another thread on the moon and a bit of topic but just thought this was interesting enough to include here, apologies if some feel it is not.Found this image showing something in the Zeeman (crater) on the Moon.Not saying this is a genuine anomaly but the smudge doesn't exist on the photos taken by Clementine, only in the images created by the old Clementine image browser.So this could be just a smudge created by the old Clementine image browser and nothing else.:confused:

Zeeman (crater) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Zeeman (crater) Coordinates 75.2°S 134.8°WCoordinates: 75.2°S 134.8°W Diameter 184 km Depth Unknown Colongitude 135° at sunrise Eponym Pieter Zeeman Zeeman is a lunar impact crater located on the far side of the Moon near its south pole. It is not directly visible from the Earth.

To the northwest of Zeeman lies the crater Numerov. Southeast of the rim is the crater Ashbrook. The outer rim of Zeeman is eroded somewhat irregularly, with considerable variation in width of the inner slopes. The crater Zeeman Y lies across the northern wall, reaching almost to the relatively flat interior floor. In the western rim is a small crater that joins a gash that runs down to the floor. The surface of the interior is pock-marked by many tiny craterlets, and worn crater features. There is a low central rise, offset to the southeast of the interior mid-point.

James, that is nothing to do with a Moon hoax. Done a few times on this forum.

The smudge is the size of a city, a later photograph showed a perfectly normal crater. So either the LA sized craft being hidden with zero finesse, got up and flew away with no trace, or something went wrong with the process to send it or print it.

Personally, I go with the latter.,If there was subterfuge, they would hardly have released the picture IMO:D

ashikenshin

13-11-2010, 09:24 PM

James, that is nothing to do with a Moon hoax. Done a few times on this forum.

The smudge is the size of a city, a later photograph showed a perfectly normal crater. So either the LA sized craft being hidden with zero finesse, got up and flew away with no trace, or something went wrong with the process to send it or print it.

Personally, I go with the latter.,If there was subterfuge, they would hardly have released the picture IMO:D

it would be that big? I doubt it's the latter though. You would think that with the money they put into these pictures they would come cristal clear. Also this isn't the only picture with something smudged out of it. Call me crazy but I do think that here they are hiding something. I may be dellusional to think this is so or just hopeful that there is something hiding in there :P

jamesc

14-11-2010, 12:07 PM

James, that is nothing to do with a Moon hoax. Done a few times on this forum.

The smudge is the size of a city, a later photograph showed a perfectly normal crater. So either the LA sized craft being hidden with zero finesse, got up and flew away with no trace, or something went wrong with the process to send it or print it.

Personally, I go with the latter.,If there was subterfuge, they would hardly have released the picture IMO:D

Hi and with all due respect, yes as i said in my OP i know this is not a moon hoax post or the nature of the topic that OP covered ,thank you for reminding me, again i apoligse.:cool:

"The smudge is the size of a city, a later photograph showed a perfectly normal crater".

I dunno...
Ask Sgt Karl Wolf ;;)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5599752745422246667#

I found this interesting too;

China Moon mission, Chang'E-2... a Chinese tabloid posted this image in an article claiming the Chinese had taken images of this area and would expose NASA. The article on the original 'news' site is already gone;

China Communist Central, National Assembly and Chinese Army Committee (pardon on the names) sent congratulation telegraphs over the success of the Chang'e Lunar Mission, and organized a grand celebration function. Wen Jiabao personally attended this function to reveal the photo. (or it may mean to open up the function). Such a grand and high profiled function are not normal and definitely have something behind this event.

A rumor has it that the Chang'e Lunar Exploration found a mysterious object similiar to what NASA have found. Said to be some unbelievable object. The internal committee had a big disparity over this and those important national leaders have all came and viewed it. It is freaking/#ing astonishing, finally know what the # the americans are afraid of. There are important figures who wants to reveal this finding but the forces that oppose this is huge as well.

( kindly note, bird in chinese/ mandarian relates to cock/dick. Which is similar to saying, " what the # that they are afraid of " rather than , "what bird that they are afraid of." )

米国人 - translation would turn this out to be "rice country people" or something. But i summarize it the poster might be typing without editing as it should be 美 "mei" instead of 米 "mi" for americans.

TMD - a short form for a chinese vulgar , a " honorable" way of asking for ur mom.

After all this is a sidestory on the news, you can't expect the language to be in proper chinese or without vulgar to be able to run through a translator.

link; http://www.chnqiang.com/article/2010/1109/mil_31794_2.shtml

And then this;
quote;
"Here is a video which depicts a massive rectangular shaped impression into the dark side of the moon, accompanied with straight raised tier and terraces. This massive structure is situated right next to the Zeeman Crater. Unfortunately, the most recent images we get from NASA have been air brushed, but the original ones from the 1960′s clearly show this object in this video.
To see both the original and air brushed images go to Google Earth / Moon, and enter these coordinates:"
Long: 73Â° 08′ 30 SÂ Lat: 145Â° 40′ 40 W

quote;
"Who would find these images of anomalies, varying symmetries, or too many coincidences, would be entitled to wonder about the probability and characteristics relating to the complex process leading Nature to create such formations, which seem at least very atypical . To recall the symmetry is rare on the Moon on the assumption that training is supposed to be natural."

"Nothing was added or modified in the image itself. Just the brightness has been increased slightly since the original photograph is relatively dark. The 'White Pearl' is intrinsically the right structure, the grade of contrast is seen already clear on the source image.

"This object appears there different symmetries in all directions, reminiscent of architecture, finished in "half-circle 'at the back (we even see the shadow on part), a vertical formation in the center, high compared to the whole, and a downward curve at the front. All in white, with a high albedo. This value indicates the difference in composition with the elements around. It is a priori a structure that follows the full floor, not a mere play of shadows and lights."

"To the left of the main formation, there seems to be a structure of smaller T-shaped, topped by a spherical object appearance."

"Regarding the white structure, it could be a vehicle left on site during the Apollo missions (Jeep, etc.). First image from 1967, the first moon landing 'official' took place in 1969. Second Crater Copernicus was never 'officially' explored by astronauts. Tert-wide structure can correspond to a human-sized vehicle. The image resolution would not allow it."

"Second, even if many defects / white spots cover a large part of photography, this area is not affected".

Remember i am NOT saying that we never went too the Moon, we did but i believe or perceive that there is a POSSIBILITY that what was seen and recorded was either NOT expected or WAS anticipated out of human perceptions called "not sure, maybe, or could be" by the PAB at NASA at that time and right up to the present day.I FOR ONE DO NOT BLAME THEM FOR NOT RELEASING ANY THING, ITS HUGE.

That there was a real perception by NASA that artificial, unnatural or intelligent anomalies being found on the Moon was well considered and planned for well in advance of these landings and any future missions from the various Apollo Moon missions that would take place.

apollo_gnomon

15-11-2010, 05:13 AM

His arm is bent and his arm is just off perpendicular to the angle of the Sun. The shadow is of his elbow and his arm flattened out (from the perspective of the Sun).

I believe you've been told this exact thing already, in this very thread. By me.

This NASA artwork painted by John Lowery in 1988 accurately portrays the warm brown tone natural colors of the moon rather than the false cold total gray.

The art seems rather specific. The astronaut's backpack is labeled J. Stovall (Who is that?) and the mission patch reads LEEDS (anyone know about this program?)

The caption reads: FUTURE ASTRONAUTS exploring a lava cave on -- December 10, 2010!!! Right around the corner! See it here; http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=10166

PROPHESY OR SAD COMMENTARY ON HOPES DASHED?

jamesc

16-11-2010, 01:57 PM

Following on from the Lunar ART post i find this article and quote about how NASA lost the original Moon tapes for Apollo 11, they just dissapeared, nowhere to be found.Here is the article below taken from the news paper "USA TODAY".Not saying these were lost INTENTIONALLY but interesting none the less.:cool:

NASA lost moon footage, Hollywood restores it;

In this July 20, 1969 photo provided by NASA and taken by Lt. Michael Collins through the window of the lunar command module, the Apollo 11 lunar module decends to the surface of the moon carrying astronauts Neil Armstong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2009/07/16/moonx-large.jpg

WASHINGTON (AP)  NASA could put a man on the moon but didn't have the sense to keep the original video of the live TV transmission.
In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.

But now Hollywood is coming to the rescue.

The studio wizards who restored "Casablanca" are digitally sharpening and cleaning up the ghostly, grainy footage of the moon landing, making it even better than what TV viewers saw on July 20, 1969. They are doing it by working from four copies that NASA scrounged from around the world.

"There's nothing being created; there's nothing being manufactured," said NASA senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who is in charge of the project. "You can now see the detail that's coming out."

The first batch of restored footage was released just in time for the 40th anniversary of the "one giant leap for mankind," and some of the details seem new because of their sharpness. Originally, astronaut Neil Armstrong's face visor was too fuzzy to be seen clearly. The upgraded video of Earth's first moonwalker shows the visor and a reflection in it.

The $230,000 refurbishing effort is only three weeks into a monthslong project, and only 40% of the work has been done. But it does show improvements in four snippets: Armstrong walking down the ladder; Buzz Aldrin following him; the two astronauts reading a plaque they left on the moon; and the planting of the flag on the lunar surface.

Nafzger said a huge search that began three years ago for the old moon tapes led to the "inescapable conclusion" that 45 tapes of Apollo 11 video were erased and reused. His report on that will come out in a few weeks.

The original videos beamed to Earth were stored on giant reels of tape that each contained 15 minutes of video, along with other data from the moon. In the 1970s and '80s, NASA had a shortage of the tapes, so it erased about 200,000 of them and reused them.

How did NASA end up looking like a bumbling husband taping over his wedding video with the Super Bowl?

Nafzger, who was in charge of the live TV recordings back in the Apollo years, said they were mostly thought of as data tapes. It wasn't his job to preserve history, he said, just to make sure the footage worked. In retrospect, he said he wished NASA hadn't reused the tapes.

Outside historians were aghast.

"It's surprising to me that NASA didn't have the common sense to save perhaps the most important historical footage of the 20th century," said Rice University historian and author Douglas Brinkley. He noted that NASA saved all sorts of data and artifacts from Apollo 11, and it is "mind-boggling that the tapes just disappeared."

The remastered copies may look good, but "when dealing with historical film footage, you always want the original to study," Brinkley said.

Smithsonian Institution space curator Roger Launius, a former NASA chief historian, said the loss of the original video "doesn't surprise me that much."

"It was a mistake, no doubt about that," Launius said. "This is a problem inside the entire federal government. ... They don't think that preservation is all that important."

Launius said federal warehouses where historical artifacts are saved are "kind of like the last scene of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark.' It just goes away in this place with other big boxes."

The company that restored all the Indiana Jones movies, including "Raiders," is the one bailing out NASA.

Lowry Digital of Burbank, Calif., noted that "Casablanca" had a pixel count 10 times higher than the moon video, meaning the Apollo 11 footage was fuzzier than that vintage movie and more of a challenge in one sense.

Of all the video the company has dealt with, "this is by far and away the lowest quality," said Lowry president Mike Inchalik.

"It's certainly a little better than the original," Launius said. "It's not a lot better."

The Apollo 11 video remains in black and white. Inchalik said he would never consider colorizing it, as has been done to black-and-white classic films. And the moon is mostly gray anyway.

The restoration used four video sources: CBS News originals; kinescopes from the National Archives; a video from Australia that received the transmission of the original moon video; and camera shots of a TV monitor.

Both Nafzger and Inchalik acknowledged that digitally remastering the video could further encourage conspiracy theorists who believe NASA faked the entire moon landing on a Hollywood set. But they said they enhanced the video as conservatively as possible.

Besides, Inchalik said that if there had been a conspiracy to fake a moon landing, NASA surely would have created higher-quality film.

Back in 1969, nearly 40% of the picture quality was lost converting from one video format used on the moon  called slow scan  to something that could be played on TVs on Earth, Nafzger said.

NASA did not lose other Apollo missions' videos because they weren't stored on the type of tape that needed to be reused, Nafzger said.

As part of the moon landing's 40th anniversary, the space agency has been trotting out archival material. NASA has a website with audio from private conversations in the lunar module and command capsule. The agency is also webcasting radio from Apollo 11 as if the mission were taking place today.

The video restoration project did not involve improving the sound. Inchalik said he listened to Armstrong's famous first words from the surface of the moon, trying to hear if he said "one small step for man" or "one small step for A man," but couldn't tell.

Through a letter read at a news conference Thursday, Armstrong had the last word about the video from the moon: "I was just amazed that there was any picture at all."

"NASA lost the original Moon tapes for Apollo 11, they just dissapeared, nowhere to be found. It could be a clerical error, but honestly, how do you LOSE your footage of the first ever visit by a human to another celestial body, when YOU did the job"?

"It's fishy to be and quite a few others, to be honest. The footage was "reconstructed" by Hollywood with the help of others, to the best of their abilities."

"This only lends credence to the nickname Never A Straight Answer While it may seem too obvious to use smudging, you also have to realize that most people are sheep, and will accept whatever the government tells them.The individuals who question it in their mind, for the most part, will never act on those questions in terms of research or talking to others, for fear of ridicule but that's usually how things go.Nothing to see here, move along.";)

"While I don't buy that the Apollo 11 landing was staged, I can't comprehend how we don't have a base up there now, especially since at the pace we were going. I believe that we found something on the Moon to spooked us, and spooked other countries as well".

"There COULD or MIGHT be proof in photos up there and IF there is would NASA take it out because of not fearing mass panic but rather the fundamental changes in attitude and belief systems that would follow on by any release of pictures that proved or showed ET intelligence in past or present presences on the Moon. Even sloppily releases, because for the most part, no one asks the tough questions."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-16-moon-footage_N.htm

apollo_gnomon

17-11-2010, 01:46 AM

Not videotape. The video signal was muliplexed with reams of data, and the entire thing was recored on weird ass tapes that can only be played on a few machines.

But guess what? They learned from their mistake, and don't do that exact thing anymore. They don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel for every single piece of the space program now; instead they just store the incoming transmissions on hard drives.

rodin

17-11-2010, 09:50 AM

JamesC and Bruce1- perhaps you'd like to start yr own thread about YOUR 'evidence' that proves Apollo was a hoax?

To the serious/scientific debaters - sorry I can't put in the hours on this @ the moment.

Its obvious those recent photo artifacts are not of images. Look @ the contrast shift for one thing between the crater 'object' and surrounding surface.

As early as 1959 the US army considered a permanent underground base on the
moon. While the original underground idea has significant merit, space agencies
have strayed from this sensible concept, focusing instead on short-term touch and go
missions and relying on the expendable paradigm.

Newly disclosed advances in
underground telerobotic mining technology for terrestrial purposes provides a
foundation for an emerging opportunity for international space programs to
conceptualize, design, build and implement an underground lunar habitat and polar
volatile mining and processing operation.

This paper discusses an emerging
uniquely Canadian concept for a permanent manned outpost on the moon, an
outpost that could enable a longer-term commercial enterprise. The paper offers
rationale for an underground lunar outpost, and discusses how it might be
constructed as well as the terrestrial technologies that could enable a radiationprotected
underground habitat to made and later utilized to mine lunar volatiles.

1. Introduction;

As the Space Shuttle, CandaArm and Space Station approach the end of their program lives the question
What next? arises. Several countries, including the USA and China, are looking toward the progressive
exploration of the solar system as encapsulated in the NASA logo Moon, Mars and Beyond.

The Moon
was the first major target for NASA, and the recent discovery of water has many eying the moon with new
vigour. The reason: It now seems likely that a permanent lunar base is possible by utilizing the natural
resources available, in particular the recently confirmed water and other volatiles.

The ability to break
water into hydrogen and oxygen to provide the main ingredients needed to sustain human and plant life as
well as make rocket fuel make a permanent off-world base more feasible than ever before. Furthermore,
environmental pressures will eventually force any permanent base underground, especially for long-term
habitation.

These issues include cosmic radiation, solar flares, temperature extremes, vacuum and the
constant bombardment of micro-meteorites. Galactic cosmic radiation alone will eventually force this
move to rock-shielded protection of astronauts as at least 2 metres (more likely 10 meters or more) of rock
cover will be needed to protect human, animals and plants from damaging effects of cumulative secondary
radiation.

Why not embrace this design philosophy from the outset?
The discovery of water on the moon recently and NASAs interest in using the moon for exploration
and potentially the manufacturing of fuel to explore the solar system, has many contemplating how to live
and work on the moon. Astronauts will concentrate on three major activities: survival, exploration.

So as we see as early as 1959 the US army considered a permanent underground base on the moon well before the moon landings took place;Was this the real reason for the moon landings and not just for the show/achievement or beating the Russians in the space race.Where they in fact scared off the Moon by some unknown intelligence, who knows but i feel its worth keeping on the back burners.:cool:

jamesc

17-11-2010, 04:45 PM

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-362/p77.jpg

This one looks like an entrance for an underground bunker:D .I feel when looking at various lunar images what I like is all those sharp jagged peaks yet all the hills in Apollo pictures are all smooth and rounded. Seems to me that there is so many odd looking things on the moon.Many look like to me of pictures of ruins here on earth.Here is a link to various lunar images to browse at ones leisure.

There are tens of thousands of them that you can download so you can get a resolution of better quality - here; http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/index.html at a site run by Arizona State University.

truegroup

17-11-2010, 05:19 PM

JamesC and Brucel - perhaps you'd like to start yr own thread about YOUR 'evidence' that proves Apollo was a hoax?

Reading the last two posts, that would be a 'no' then?

rodin

18-11-2010, 09:27 AM

Reading the last two posts, that would be a 'no' then?

With friends like these who needs enemies :D

jamesc

18-11-2010, 03:52 PM

Found this video, its part 3 ,CANNOT FIND PART 1 AND 2.:rolleyes:Looking for them.;)

quote;
"This third segment of "The Truth Behind The Tones" begins to examine the various editing techniques that were used to disguise, obfuscate, and erase many of the quindar tones in the Apollo GCTA lunar surface television footage. Appreciating this component of the cover-up is vital to your understanding of the depth and magnitude of the Apollo TV lies."

"Back in Part 2, I conclusively demonstrated that NASA has indeed LIED to the world about the true purposes of the quindar tones you hear in the GCTA footage, and in Part 3 you will see examples showing the various editing techniques they exploited in order to erase or cover up the majority of the quindar tones that were actually being created by the digital editing system".

While i am no expert in "quindar tonnes" i am still trying to see where this video is going.:confused:

jamesc

18-11-2010, 04:28 PM

With friends like these who needs enemies :D

Rodin my dear truth quester , i like to perceive that i am not anyone's enemy but only to the sources of lies and deceit.;)

truegroup

18-11-2010, 06:16 PM

While i am no expert in "quindar tonnes" i am still trying to see where this video is going.:confused:

James, they are very well clued up about this at apollohoax. Why not ask the real experts. The guy who made that video is confusing proof with his dumbass opinion:rolleyes: He even covers his ass by saying a lot of the tones are covered up!:D

jamesc

18-11-2010, 07:15 PM

James, they are very well clued up about this at apollohoax. Why not ask the real experts. The guy who made that video is confusing proof with his dumbass opinion:rolleyes: He even covers his ass by saying a lot of the tones are covered up!:D

Ok ,will try for a more in-depth explanation over on AH.;)

jamesc

19-11-2010, 05:35 PM

Still waiting to be verified and accepted by the mods on APOLLO HOAX forum :rolleyes:, registered,

jamesc

19-11-2010, 06:36 PM

Ultra Close-Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site;

While i am still waiting on my pending account on AH to be given the all clear so that i can post ect, i found this while browsing the AH forums, interesting video.

quote;
"See stunning ultra close-up views of the Apollo 11 landing site. All Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images were deconvolved and enhanced in order to show the landing site with a remarkable level of detail. The large crater to the right of the Apollo 11 LM descent stage is Little West Crater. Lunar north is up in all photos. Distance scales are accurate to approximately 2 percent or better."

"It is funny that there are those who believe that the moon landings were a hoax. The plethora of archived data and Apollo era documents, video footage, photographs, and moon rocks which have been thoroughly examined by scientists around the world, makes it absolutely impossible that the moon landings could have been hoaxed. And now, 40 years later, the LRO photographs of the Apollo landing sites prove that the moon landings were in fact real."

Notes about how the photos were aligned relative to one another:

All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad.

This type of rotational alignment method is necessary since some photos may be slightly skewed depending on the look-down angles of the LRO when it photographed the landing site. Next, the images were independently scaled in the horizontal and vertical axes in order to get the image scales to exactly match photo M116161085R. This was necessary due to the somewhat varying look-down angles as mentioned above. A second iteration of the above procedures was done in order to fine tweak the registration of all photos relative to photo M116161085R.

Finally, north-up orientation was calibrated based on the azimuth bearing of the setting sun as seen in the final sunset photo M117338434R. The setting sun, at the moment photo M117338434R was taken, was on a bearing of 269°47' relative to the LM. It was then easy to measure the bearing of the plume deflector shadows in photo M117338434R and then adjust the rotation of all of the stacked photos such that lunar north is straight up.

A note about the resolutions described in my video:

Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.

Ultra Close-Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site - YouTube

jamesc

20-11-2010, 06:54 PM

Mercy, STILL waiting for my pending Apollo Hoax account to be activated.:rolleyes:

truegroup

20-11-2010, 06:56 PM

Mercy, STILL waiting for my pending Apollo Hoax account to be activated.:rolleyes:

PM Apollo_gnomon he has an account there and can ask the Moderator?

frenat

20-11-2010, 07:01 PM

Mercy, STILL waiting for my pending Apollo Hoax account to be activated.:rolleyes:
It is a small forum with a single admin/moderator. Patience is a virtue.

jamesc

20-11-2010, 08:25 PM

PM Apollo_gnomon he has an account there and can ask the Moderator?

Good shout, cheers.

jamesc

20-11-2010, 08:26 PM

It is a small forum with a single admin/moderator. Patience is a virtue.

:D

apollo_gnomon

21-11-2010, 03:21 AM

I poked the mod with a stick to see if he's breathing. No response yet.

jamesc

21-11-2010, 10:48 AM

I poked the mod with a stick to see if he's breathing. No response yet.

Cheers AG.Hopefully he is still alive.:D

jamesc

21-11-2010, 10:50 AM

Result, i am registered. Cheers again Apollo gnomon.:)

jamesc

21-11-2010, 11:12 AM

Just posted the below on the AH forum, hopefully someone with a better understating over there will be on it soon.:cool:

NASA's Apollo TV Lies Revealed - PART 3 - The cropping games continue

jamesc

21-11-2010, 03:05 PM

Just got a rather good explanation from one of the members over on AH forum about the video that contained the Quindar tones arguments; Here is this such explanation below;

quote;
"I've known about this one for quite some time. Quindar tones have a very well documented purpose: they mute and unmute uplink audio.

Apollo uses a "full duplex" communication system. The ground transmits to the spacecraft on one frequency, and the spacecraft transmits back on another. This permits both ends to talk and be heard at the same time (except for the human difficulty in doing so) but it also means that without extra switching each side would hear background noise and side conversations not intended for them.

The return link from Apollo solves the problem very neatly with a simple switch on each astronaut's microphone. Unless the switch is pressed (PTT mode) or turned on automatically by a sufficiently strong voice (VOX mode), silence is transmitted.

But this doesn't work in the forward link to Apollo because there's a long series of analog telecommunication links from Houston to the ground uplink site, and these lines add noise and crosstalk that would otherwise be annoying to the astronauts. So the Capcom sends a special tone burst at the beginning of each transmission that is picked up by a detector at the uplink site and enables the audio path to the transmitter. When he's done, a slightly different (lower) tone burst turns off the audio path, and the astronauts hear silence.

This function becomes utterly obvious from even a few minutes of listening, but the person making the claim you refer to seems utterly immune to reason."

Mercy, STILL waiting for my pending Apollo Hoax account to be activated.:rolleyes:

Sorry for the delay, James. I was away from home for a couple of days and could only access the forum using my phone. Also, the AH forum doesn't notify me when someone joins so I don't always notice right away.

jamesc

21-11-2010, 08:43 PM

Sorry for the delay, James. I was away from home for a couple of days and could only access the forum using my phone. Also, the AH forum doesn't notify me when someone joins so I don't always notice right away.

No problem lunarorbit, no need to apologise ,we all lead busy life's i suppose, just glad to be registered now, cheers, take care.:)

jamesc

23-11-2010, 03:59 PM

I see that CHINA's CNSA released the first images from Chang'e 2 (Moon) Probe not long ago. Interesting to see what moon images CHINA's CNSA Chang'e 2 (Moon) Probe will release. Until recently NASA has been the dominant force in Moon landings and has been the one to crash a non explosive device directly into a area of the Moon, China looks like its flexing its muscle and hopefully it will be to share any new understandings with the world.;)

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9b094816eaa.jpg
Screen shows the virtual animation of the first braking of Chang'e II lunar probe in Beijing Aerospace Control Center;

Though launched just a month ago, the Chinese Chang'e 2 space probe has already began sending back images of the Moon, experts at the China National Space Administration (CNSA) announce.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2a0233c5b99.jpg
A new view on the Bay of Rainbows, showing little surface deformations: Image credits: CNSA

The space probe took its first pictures at the end of last month, after being launched on October 1 from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center, aboard a Long March 3C delivery system.

The goal of the new spacecraft is to spend more than 6 months conducting operations in lunar orbit, while at the same time scouting out the most appropriate location for a future robotic lander, that the nation plans to deploy in 2013. Similar to how the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) was used to detect spots for future manned missions to the Moon, the Chinese spacecraft needs to create maps of the lunar soil, and determine which area would be best for a landing.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/883611ed013f.jpgA part of the moon's Sinus Iridum, sent back by Chang'e-2

Can we expect China to be more forthcoming with NASA , hopefully they will.For when it comes to space exploration and to boldly go where no man/woman has gone before in the future we are all in this together.

Another revelation that U.S.A. and western journalists and historians are prohibited from writing about concerns the Jewish origins of Mao Tse Tungs Red Chinese revolution. In fact, Mao was a stupid and inept Chinese peasant who was schooled by Skull and Bonesmen and initiated into the internationalist Masonic Lodge by socialist Jews from the United States. This was done with the tacit permission of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a 32nd degree Mason and, later, President Harry S. Truman a 33rd degree Mason.

Mao all along has been a closely-controlled puppet of Jewish revolutionariesmen like Israel Epstein and Sidney Shapiro, who lived in China and had the reins of power over two key areas of Beijings Communist Governmentthe treasury (money) and the media (propaganda). Interestingly, Zionist Jews hold sway over these same two essential instruments of government today in the United States.

Jewish Spies Give U.S.A. Military Secrets to Communist China
The covert Jewish control of Mao and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) explains why convicted Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard, found guilty of stealing thousands of classified documents from the Defense Department where he worked, gave these materials to his masters, the Israeli Mossad operating in the U.S.A. The Israelis, in turn, transferred these valuable military secrets straight to Red Chinese dictators in Beijing.

Pollard, a Jew born in Galveston, Texas, sits in a federal prison today. Recently, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu came to America, he visited Pollard in prison and assured the despicable turncoat Israeli spy that the Israeli government was working behind-the-scenes with Obamas White House to pardon the convicted spy. Meanwhile, Pollard is a national hero in Israelhonored for stealing Americas most precious military secrets which Israel gave to Communist China!

http://www.texemarrs.com/092010/triad_of_evil.htm

jamesc

24-11-2010, 04:52 PM

The Weinstein Company Acquires Apollo 18;:confused:

The Weinstein Company has acquired Apollo 18, the sci-fi thriller based on the screenplay by Brian Miller, winner of the inaugural Astana International Action Film Festival screenplay competition, founded by Wanted director Timur Bekmambetov. Trevor Cawood is set to direct the project.

Bekmambetov and Michele Wolkoff, President of Development for Bekmambetov Projects Ltd. (BPL) will produce the film.

Set to be shot documentary style, the film unearths lost footage from Apollo 18's undocumented and covert mission to the moon, revealing disturbing new evidence of other life forms.

Bekmambetov announced the contest this spring, in conjunction with Kazakhstan's first film festival held in Astana, Kazakhstan July 27-July 1, 2010. Five finalists from the United States, France, Kazakhstan, and the UK attended the film festival, which was a celebration of international action films. As part of the competition, Miller was awarded a cash prize and a development deal with BPL.

The film is slated to begin production this December for a March release date.

The film is based on the idea that the Apollo 18 moon mission, officially canceled by NASA, actually took place and led to an encounter with extraterrestrials on the moon. Part of what sold the Weinsteins on the film was footage shown by Timur Bekmambetov representing film supposedly shot by the Apollo 18 astronauts.

In a press release announcing Apollo 18, Harvey Weinstein said, "We first became aware of Timur after his 2004 film Night Watch. Recently he came to us with this never-before-seen footage, apparently of the Apollo 18 space mission, and, as filmmakers, we were absolutely compelled to bring it to the screen for audiences to judge for themselves."

I hope that people here realize that the purported "found footage" is not real.
The footage of Apollo 18 in this film is just fiction set in a documentary style, like Blair Witch and Paranormal State.

The producers are being a bit cheeky in the way they sometimes make it sound as if it's real (like the Blair Witch producers did), but that's just their viral marketing campaign. It sounds as if this could be an entertaining scifi thriller if done well, but let's not be fooled into thinking this will be a "real" documentary.

It's being called a science fiction thriller for a reason.

rodin

26-11-2010, 07:10 AM

The Weinstein Company Acquires Apollo 18;:confused:

The Weinstein Company has acquired Apollo 18, the sci-fi thriller based on the screenplay by Brian Miller, winner of the inaugural Astana International Action Film Festival screenplay competition, founded by Wanted director Timur Bekmambetov. Trevor Cawood is set to direct the project.

Bekmambetov and Michele Wolkoff, President of Development for Bekmambetov Projects Ltd. (BPL) will produce the film. ....

Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer

WASHINGTON Put aside those absurd claims the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. Two scientists pouring over photos taken by a lunar orbiting spacecraft have eyed evidence of a touchdown.

New research led by Misha Kreslavsky, a space scientist in the department of geological sciences at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, has found anomalies in the Moons surface in the vicinity of the Apollo 15 landing site.

Apollo 15s lunar module, the Falcon, touched down at the Hadley-Apennine region near the Apennine Mountains on July 30, 1971. Falcon was the first of the piloted landers to carry enlarged fuel tanks, as well as tote along a Moon rover.

Moonwalkers David Scott and James Irwin scuffed up the lunar surface during their over three-day stay. Using an electric-powered car, the twosome wheeled their way back and forth over the crater-dotted terrain for a total of 17 miles (27.4 kilometers).

Lunar properties

Kreslavsky, along with research colleague Yuri Shkuratov of the Kharkov Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine, made use of images taken by the U.S. Defense Departments high-tech Clementine lunar orbiter.

The Ballistic Missile Defense Organizations faster, better, cheaper Clementine probe circled the Moon in 1994, making use of a camera that snapped well over a million images in the ultraviolet to visible range.

A set of Clementine images in the vicinity of the Apollo 15 landing site were intensively studied by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov. Their work was dedicated to help discern fresh impacts on the Moon, or to search for sites of recent seismic activity in the lunar crust.

The work and the techniques utilized not only proved useful in studying the lunar surface, but also yielded a bonus find.

Picture this

A small dark spot found in the Clementine images is not associated with any fresh crater, but exactly coincides with the Apollo 15 landing site, Kreslavsky told SPACE.com.

"This is a result of my processing 52 images taken by the Clementine spacecraft through a red filter, while the spacecraft went over the scene from the southern horizon through zenith to the northern horizon," Kreslavsky said. A diffuse dark spot can be seen exactly at the landing site, he said.

The new research adds to earlier work published in 1972 by space scientists Noel Hinners and Farouk El-Baz.

In an Apollo 15 preliminary science report, Hinners and El-Baz studied two high-resolution photographs of the landing site vicinity. One picture was taken from the Falcon lunar lander during descent. The other image, snapped by astronaut Alfred Worden, was taken from the orbiting Apollo command/service module, Endeavour, a few hours after Scott and Irwin had landed.

"Some brightening of the immediate vicinity of the landing point is seen on the second photo," Kreslavsky said.

Rocket blast

Using Clementine photos taken of the Apollo 15 touchdown zone, several anomalies can be seen. "All of them but one are related to small, fresh impact craters. The only one not related to any crater, exactly coincides with the landing site," Kreslavsky said.

The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing, Kreslavsky said. He contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar modules engine during touchdown.

The anomaly is within a 165-foot (50-meter) to 490-foot (150-meter) radius around the landing site, Kreslavsky said. "Unfortunately, the Clementine data do not allow similar studies for any other landing sites."

The LLRV's, humorously referred to as "flying bedsteads," were created by a predecessor of the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and Bell Aerosystems Company, Niagra Falls, New York, to study and analyze piloting techniques needed to fly and land the tiny Apollo Lunar Module in the Moon's airless environment. (Dryden was known simply as the NASA Flight Research Center from 1959 to 1976.)

Success of the LLRV's led to the building of three Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV) used by Apollo astronauts at the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, predecessor of the NASA Johnson Space Center.

Apollo 11 astronaut, Neil Armstrong -- first human to step onto the Moon's surface -- said the mission would not have been successful without the type of simulation that resulted from the LLRV's.

When Apollo planning was underway in 1960, NASA was looking for a simulator to profile the descent to the Moon's surface. Three concepts developed: an electronic simulator, a tethered device, and the ambitious Flight Research Center (FRC) contribution, a free-flying vehicle. All three became serious projects, but eventually the FRC's LLRV became the most significant one. Hubert Drake is credited with originating the idea, while Donald Bellman and Gene Matranga were senior engineers on the project, with Bellman the project manager.

After conceptual planning and meetings with engineers from Bell Aerosystems, a company with experience in vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, NASA issued Bell a $50,000 study contract in December 1961. Bell had independently conceived a similar, free-flying simulator, and out of this study came the headquarters' endorsement of the LLRV concept, resulting in a $3.6 million production contract awarded to Bell February 1, 1963, for delivery of the first of two vehicles for flight studies at the FRC within 14 months.

Built of aluminum alloy trusses and shaped like a giant four-legged bedstead, the vehicle was to simulate a lunar landing profile. To do this, the LLRV had a General Electric CF-700-2V turbofan engine mounted vertically in a gimbal, with 4200 pounds of thrust. The engine got the vehicle up to the test altitude and was then throttled back to support five-sixths of the vehicle's weight, simulating the reduced gravity of the Moon.

Two hydrogen peroxide lift rockets with thrust that could be varied from 100 to 500 pounds handled the LLRV's rate of descent and horizontal movement. Sixteen smaller hydrogen peroxide rockets, mounted in pairs, gave the pilot control in pitch, yaw, and roll. As safety backups on the LLRV, six 500-pound rockets could take over the lift function and stabilize the craft for a moment if the main jet engine failed. The pilot had a zero-zero ejection seat that would then lift him away to safety.

The two LLRV's were shipped from Bell to the FRC in April 1964, with program emphasis on vehicle No. 1. It was first readied for a captive test on a tilt-table affair. The scene then shifted to the old South Base area of Edwards. On the day of the first flight, October 30, 1964, research pilot Joe Walker flew it three times for a total of just under 60 seconds to a peak altitude of ten feet (three meters). Later flights were shared between Walker, another Center pilot named Don Mallick, the Army's Jack Kleuver, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, pilots Joseph Algranti and H.E. "Bud" Ream.

NASA had accumulated enough data from the LLRV flight program at the FRC by mid-1966 to give Bell a contract to deliver three LLTV's at a cost of $2.5 million each.

In December 1966 vehicle No. 1 was shipped to Houston, followed by No. 2 in January 1967, within weeks of its first flight. Modifications already made to No. 2 had given the pilot a three-axis side control stick and a more restrictive cockpit view, both features of the real Lunar Module that would later be flown by the astronauts down to the Moon's surface.

When the LLRV's arrived at Houston, where research pilots would learn how to become LLTV instructor pilots, No. 2 had been flown just seven times while No. 1, the veteran, had a total of 198 flights. In December 1967, the first of the LLTV's joined the FRC's LLRV's to eventually make up the five-vehicle training and simulator fleet.

Three of the five vehicles were later destroyed in crashes at Houston - LLRV No. 1 in May 1968 and two LLTVs, in December 1968 and January 1971.

The two accidents in 1968, before the first lunar landing, did not deter Apollo program managers who enthusiastically relied on the vehicles for simulation and training.

Donald "Deke" Slayton, then NASA's astronaut chief, said there was no other way to simulate a Moon landing except by flying the LLTV. LLRV No. 2 was eventually returned to Dryden, where it is on display as a silent artifact of the Center's contribution to the Apollo program.;):cool:

jamesc

27-11-2010, 06:04 PM

Man the information just keeps revealing its self , if you are prepared to look for it, take this below,yes its old but again relevant;

Abandoned Spaceships;:D
For the first time since the 1970s, a NASA spacecraft will get clear pictures of Apollo relics on the Moon.
+ Play Audio | + Download Audio | + Historia en Espa単ol | + Join mailing list

July 11, 2005: Inside the lunar lander Challenger, a radio loudspeaker crackled.
Houston: "We've got you on television now. We have a good picture."
Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 commander: "Glad to see old Rover's still working."
"Rover," the moon buggy, sat outside with no one in the driver's seat, its side-mounted TV camera fixed on Challenger. Back in Houston and around the world, millions watched. The date was Dec. 19, 1972, and history was about to be made.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17vipsite.jpg

Above: The Apollo 17 moon buggy, circled, waits to film the departure of its mothership, Challenger.

Suddenly, soundlessly, Challenger split in two (movie). The base of the ship, the part with the landing pads, stayed put. The top, the lunar module with Cernan and Jack Schmitt inside, blasted off in a spray of gold foil. It rose, turned, and headed off to rendezvous with the orbiter America, the craft that would take them home again.

Those were the last men on the Moon. After they were gone, the camera panned back and forth. There was no one there, nothing, only the rover, the lander and some equipment scattered around the dusty floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley. Eventually, Rover's battery died and the TV transmissions stopped.

That was our last good look at an Apollo landing site.

Many people find this surprising, even disconcerting. Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims.

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.

Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.
What does a half-meter resolution picture look like? This image of an airport on Earth has the same resolution as an LROC image. Moon buggy-sized objects (automobiles and luggage carts) are clear:

Above: An example of half-meter resolution overhead photography, the same resolution that LROC images will be. This photo of an airport shows airplanes of various sizes as well as many car-sized service vehicles. Notice how shadows help the objects to stand out from the background. The LROC high-res images will also be grayscale, but will be less grainy than the example above thanks to its digital imaging technology. Image courtesy MIT Digital Orthophoto Project.

"I would say the rovers will look angular and distinct," says Mark Robinson, research associate professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, and Principal Investigator for LROC. "We might see some shading differences on top from seats, depending on the sun angle. Even the rovers' tracks might be detectable in some instances."

Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
Even more recognizable will be the discarded lander platforms. Their main bodies are 4 meters on a side, and so will fill an 8 by 8 pixel square in the LROC images. The four legs jutting out from the platforms' four corners span a diameter of 9 meters. So, from landing pad to landing pad, the landers will occupy about 18 pixels in LROC images, more than enough to trace their distinctive shapes.

Shadows help, too. Long black shadows cast across gray lunar terrain will reveal the shape of what cast them: the rovers and landers. "During the course of its year-long mission, LROC will image each landing site several times with the sunlight at different angles each time," says Robinson. Comparing the different shadows produced would allow for a more accurate analysis of the shape of the objects.

Enough nostalgia. LROC's main mission is about the future. According to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, astronauts are returning to the Moon no later than 2020. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is a scout. It will sample the Moon's radiation environment, search for patches of frozen water, make laser maps of lunar terrain and, using LROC, photograph the Moon's entire surface. By the time astronauts return, they'll know the best places to land and much of what awaits them.

Two high-priority targets for LROC are the Moon's poles.
"We're particularly interested in the poles as a potential location for a moon base," Robinson explains. "There are some cratered regions near the poles that are in shadow year-round. These places might be cold enough to harbor permanent deposits of water ice. And nearby are high regions that are sunlit all year. With constant sunlight for warmth and solar power, and a potential source of water nearby, these high regions would make an ideal location for a base." Data from LROC will help pinpoint the best ridge or plateau for setting up a lunar home.

Above: Artist Pat Rawlings' concept of a polar moonbase. [More]
Once a moonbase is established, what's the danger of it being hit by a big meteorite? LROC will help answer that question.

"We can compare LROC images of the Apollo landing sites with Apollo-era photos," says Robinson. The presence or absence of fresh craters will tell researchers something about the frequency of meteor strikes.

LROC will also be hunting for ancient hardened lava tubes. These are cave-like places, hinted at in some Apollo images, where astronauts could take shelter in case of an unexpected solar storm. A global map of these natural storm shelters will help astronauts plan their explorations.

No one knows what else LROC might find. The Moon has never been surveyed in such detail before. Surely new things await; old abandoned spaceships are just the beginning.

En Route to Mars, the Moon -- (Science@NASA) Why colonize the Moon before going to Mars? NASA scientists give their reasons.
More history: The only images that show abandoned Apollo hardware are a few shots taken by Apollo astronauts themselves while in orbit around the Moon. The images are grainy and analog. In one, the lander platform looks like a speck, in another it looks like a bright blob a few pixels across.
Right: The left-behind Apollo lander platform only appears as a tiny speck in this image taken by Apollo 17. The lander is between the crosshairs under the label "LM". [More]

More recent lunar orbiters, such as the 1994 Clementine mission, carried modern, digital cameras, more sensitive than Apollo-era devices. But these were always lower-resolution cameras meant to broadly survey the entire Moon instead of getting high-res close-ups. Clementine's camera, for example, had a maximum resolution of 25 meters per pixel -- still too coarse to resolve the Apollo relics.

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions.html

Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal -- read the words actually said by Apollo astronauts while they were on the Moon. This site is also a good source of images and movies. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/video17.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17j.html

Recommended reading:Apollo, the Epic Journey to the Moon, by David West Reynolds, 2002, Tehabi Books. West's excellent book inspired the introduction to our story, "Abandoned Spaceships."

The Great Moon Hoax -- (Science@NASA) Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did visit the Moon. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
NASA's Vision for Space Exploration; http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten

link; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

jamesc

27-11-2010, 06:38 PM

Finally before i retire to entrain some guests i am having over for some drinks;

Picture of the laser reflectors being used below;

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/images/inset-20040506-505-12.jpg

Here is the reflecter itself on the Moon, they are STILL being used today, who put them there;;)

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/ApolloLaser.jpg

I'm sure these photo's are faked too.... :rolleyes:

History of Laser Ranging ; http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/history.html

jamesc

01-12-2010, 05:42 PM

Quite a good video here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Eem7hDeREsY&vq=small#t

stelios

18-11-2011, 04:05 AM

Forget Apollo, Antarctic Moon-rock better

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/news/files/190906_meteor.jpg
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon

SYDNEY: A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.

The meteorite, known as MIL 05035, is similar in bulk and composition to basaltic lavas that fill the lunar maria, an expansive part of the Moon's surface not sampled by the U.S. Apollo program. Only one other meteorite of this type has ever been found.

"If you look at a map where the U.S. Apollo and Soviet Luna missions went, they only covered something like 17 per cent of the Moon and those were all near-side, near-equatorial sites," said Timothy McCoy of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. "As it turns out, this region is geochemically different from the rest of the Moon."

Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said. "They can give us an idea of the variety of rocks that we should expect over a broader swathe of the Moon."

MIL 05035 was discovered on an icefield in the Transantarctic Mountains, roughly 750 km from the South Pole. A black rock, slightly larger than a golfball and weighing 142.2 g, the meteorite's chemical composition suggests it has been subjected to extreme shock, probably due to impact events. Large crystals suggest it formed by slow cooling deep within the Moon's crust.

While over 200 meteorites were found in Antarctica by a field party from the U.S. Antarctic Search for Meteorites program (ANSMET) during their 2005-2006 mission, MIL 05035 is remarkably unusual. Only one other meteorite, Asuka 881757, bears a close resemblance. It was also found in Antarctica and is one of the oldest known samples of lunar basalt.

"We discover rare types on a fairly regular basis, but it is always quite exciting," said McCoy. "To put this in perspective, we described 850 meteorites for the last issue of the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter and only two or three of them would be considered of this type of rarity."

According to McCoy, such discoveries influence any future plans the U.S. space agency NASA might have for returning to the Moon. "It might inspire us to look for certain types of rocks or to travel to certain locales," he said.

"After the early lunar landings, we gained a much better appreciation of the impact history of the Moon … and rocks like MIL 05035 tell us that we are only beginning to fully understand this history. Going to particularly ancient craters, such as the enormous South Pole-Aitken basin, might help us further understand this history."

In the meantime, exploration will be left to the agents of ANSMET, who spend six weeks of every year living in tents on the ice, searching Antarctica for meteorites.

Stelios, cherry picking quotes as usual and spamming other threads with the same contentions. The people who examined the Apollo rocks have no problem with them.:rolleyes:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn’t know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that’s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I’ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn’t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]

ianw

26-11-2011, 11:05 PM

How can I prove its true if it is faked? Let

We can only point fingers at the anomalies, I agree its for the other side prove it is true.

headlikearock

26-11-2011, 11:25 PM

We can only point fingers at the anomalies, I agree its for the other side prove it is true.

You don't get to re-write history without meeting the burden of proof.

abaddon_ire

27-11-2011, 01:01 AM

We can only point fingers at the anomalies, I agree its for the other side prove it is true.

A hoax is your claim, therefore the burden of proof falls upon you.

And here you are, empty handed.

philthy53

27-11-2011, 02:54 AM

We can only point fingers at the anomalies, I agree its for the other side prove it is true.

What "anomalies?"

Just a hint, there aren't any. None. Zero.

What you thing might be, isn't.

Not to mention, the burden of proof rests on the HB'ers. The mountains of evidence proves the landings happened, as recorded.

I've said it before, and I guess you missed it.

There is not a single shred, tiniest, most remote possibility that the Apollo landings were in any way "hoaxed."

Phil

abaddon_ire

27-11-2011, 11:36 AM

We can only point fingers at the anomalies, I agree its for the other side prove it is true.

All you can do is point fingers at what you imagine are anomalies, then scream "hoax".

It is not anyone's fault but your own not to understand basic physics.

stelios

28-11-2011, 02:55 AM

Here is a line from a NASA sponsored University

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Quote:
Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesnt know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot thats better than any story any conspirator could have conceived.

These people arent scientists
They are full time NASA stooges

bertl

28-11-2011, 03:30 AM

This just in: every geoscientist in the world is a paid NASA stooge. This conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger, and still there has not been one person "in the know" who has come forward.

abaddon_ire

28-11-2011, 06:56 AM

This just in: every geoscientist in the world is a paid NASA stooge. This conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger, and still there has not been one person "in the know" who has come forward.

I once again invoke RMackey's theory of the inevitable expansion of the HB's mindless beliefs.

abaddon_ire

28-11-2011, 10:20 AM

Here, have a go at this.

http://space.au.af.mil/primer/orbital_mechanics.pdf

Or this
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

because if you cannot figure out orbital mechanics, then why should anyone pay heed to what you say?

stelios

28-11-2011, 11:10 AM

This just in: every geoscientist in the world is a paid NASA stooge. This conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger, and still there has not been one person "in the know" who has come forward.
Do you deny that Washington State University in St. Louis receives funding from NASA?
Do you also deny that that article is targeted at what the author calls "Apollo deniers?"

Geoscientist is a monthly magazine produced for the Fellowship of the Geological Society of London. The magazine is editorially independent of the Geological Society's administration. It has a print run of 10,000.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/geonews/page9211.html
Guess what Bertie,
Lunar geologists wanted
You can OFFICIALLY join the NASA brigade home division.
Volunteer keyboard operator ofcourse.

The Moon Zoo team hopes that this citizen science database will link together into a better geological history the events recorded by the lunar surface, and put in context the few ground-truth samples from Apollo.
http://moon.zooniverse.org
http://citizensciencealliance.org
http://zooniverse.org
http://galaxyzoo.org

truegroup

28-11-2011, 02:03 PM

Do you deny that Washington State University in St. Louis receives funding from NASA?

Strawman. Your theory of 12 people grows exponentially to cover your doomed 'hoax' theory. We now have Washington, MIT, Arizona and anybody else all 'in on it' just because your lack of evidence is shown up. Your 'counter'(:rolleyes:) will eventually involve the whole planet, whilst you act the big ostrich with the rebuttals aimed at you.

I urge all fence sitters to read this...

http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

In the meantime, maybe stelios and his team will show one single person who has ever come forward with direct involvement in this 'hoax'.

List of federal political scandals in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apollo? Not one? In 42 years? Surely you jest.:rolleyes: I suppose the enforcers have enforcers to keep them quiet as well.;)

headlikearock

29-11-2011, 01:28 AM

I suppose the enforcers have enforcers to keep them quiet as well.;)

Hang on a minute... if the enforcers have enforcers to keep them quiet, who keeps THOSE enforcers quiet?

I'm having a similar 'discussion' with someone at unexplainedmysteries.com, claiming that the people at mission control didn't know they were running simulations. How did the mysterious 'fake mission programmers' allow for the computer alarm during the Apollo 11 descent that nearly resulted in the misison being aborted? How did they know the guidance team would call go, no no-go for landing? They can't have done. So the guidance team must have been in on it as well.

So much for 'compartmentalisation', and 'only the top brass knew'.

Whenever you look at HB claims, the numbers that must have been involved u the hoax grows exponentially. The lunar geochemists at Washington University. All the LROC team at Arizona University, undergrads included, all perfectly willing to put their reputations and livelihoods on the line by covering up for a 40 year old scam not of their making. The list is never-ending, yet HBs are adamant that the hoax is 'compartmentalized'. What about the dummy mission control, who looked after the 'real' mission in LEO while the faked moon mission went ahead? Were they compartmentalised? Nope, they were in on it, operating from who knows what facility.

One of these days I'll compile a list of exactly who must have been in on this hoax that HBs insist only a few suits at the top knew about.

phrased eyebrow

29-11-2011, 02:17 AM

I remember seeing footage of the mission control room, and prior to the landing, somebody in charge saying something along the lines of "for the next hour, nobody comes or goes through this door".

I'd seen the fox special, so I began to notice that kind of thing. Although I'd been a staunch believer WE WENT MOON for 30 years or so at the time. What a ride, what a ride. This is absolutely unbelievable.

abaddon_ire

30-11-2011, 03:44 AM

Do you deny that Washington State University in St. Louis receives funding from NASA?
Do you also deny that that article is targeted at what the author calls "Apollo deniers?"

Oh, super, every geologist in the universe is in the paid employ of NASA.
That makes a whole hatload of sense.

Geoscientist is a monthly magazine produced for the Fellowship of the Geological Society of London. The magazine is editorially independent of the Geological Society's administration. It has a print run of 10,000.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/geonews/page9211.html
Guess what Bertie,
Lunar geologists wanted
You can OFFICIALLY join the NASA brigade home division.
Volunteer keyboard operator ofcourse.

Either they are all NASA stooges worldwide, or not. You cannot have it both ways. So which is it?

abaddon_ire

30-11-2011, 03:47 AM

fox special,

And you jumped the shark right there. Credibility, meet toilet.

phrased eyebrow

30-11-2011, 05:53 AM

Either they are all NASA stooges worldwide, or not. You cannot have it both ways. So which is it?

Under that logic, if one internet "truth seeker" has been paid, everyone who argues in legion is therefore paid also. :eek:

phrased eyebrow

30-11-2011, 05:56 AM

And you jumped the shark right there. Credibility, meet toilet. Is that what YOU cut your teeth on? Nice sense of pride.

abaddon_ire

01-12-2011, 10:27 PM

Under that logic, if one internet "truth seeker" has been paid, everyone who argues in legion is therefore paid also. :eek:

See, truth seeking involves two things, truth, and seeking.

You fail at both.

You don't start with a predetermined conclusion and attempt to shoehorn the facts to fit you predetermined conclusion.

What you do is follow the evidence to wherever it leads.

I'm surprised you don't know that.

abaddon_ire

01-12-2011, 10:28 PM

Is that what YOU cut your teeth on? Nice sense of pride.

Wow, what a non sequiter.

What is this pride of which you speak?

stelios

01-12-2011, 10:39 PM

And you jumped the shark right there. Credibility, meet toilet.
I have a distinct feeling that some of you guys are a sandwich short of a picnic.

http://apollodata.bravehost.com/

abaddon_ire

01-12-2011, 10:48 PM

I have a distinct feeling that some of you guys are a sandwich short of a picnic.

http://apollodata.bravehost.com/
I find it curious how Hoaxers are strangely unable to make decent websites.

I have done that for a living, for a range of global companies.

Yet all the hoax believers can churn out are websites like Homer Simpsons Jebus website.

Do you think there might be a reason for that?

Think before you answer, because I know why.

ianw

01-12-2011, 10:56 PM

All the want to be geologists that think they can study a bit of sand and proclaim it came from the moon are kidding themselves. Most of them have studied a piece of grit encapsulated in a plastic disk courtesy of nasa.
Not all geologists are moonies but some have swallowed the tale of were the sand has originated. A strange cross between moonie and geologist, Loonologist a dying profession.

abaddon_ire

01-12-2011, 11:02 PM

All the want to be geologists that think they can study a bit of sand and proclaim it came from the moon are kidding themselves. Most of them have studied a piece of grit encapsulated in a plastic disk courtesy of nasa.
Not all geologists are moonies but some have swallowed the tale of were the sand has originated. A strange cross between moonie and geologist, Loonologist a dying profession.

Wrong, just so wrong. Do some research.

mandelbrot

01-12-2011, 11:15 PM

I find it curious how Hoaxers are strangely unable to make decent websites.

I have done that for a living, for a range of global companies.

Yet all the hoax believers can churn out are websites like Homer Simpsons Jebus website.

Do you think there might be a reason for that?

Think before you answer, because I know why.

Yep. Stelios, you were accurate. One sandwich short of a picnic.

abaddon_ire

01-12-2011, 11:48 PM

Yep. Stelios, you were accurate. One sandwich short of a picnic.

Snigger. If you like, I can go back and quote Stelios's huge blunders.

ETA: and yours.

stelios

01-12-2011, 11:48 PM

I have done that for a living, for a range of global companies.

Do you think there might be a reason for that?

Think before you answer, because I know why.
While i have no reason to doubt you the claim you make is rather far fetched.
If you really are some kind of super web design nerd then how comes you cant even string more than two sentences together?

Anyway prove me wrong, which "range of global companes" have you designed websites for?

The reason why debunking sites tend to be low budget and hosted on free shared hosting platforms is because the people who make them do not have the enormous budget that NASA does.
NASA creates websites with graphics and animations, NASA sets up messageboards and forums and NASA pays people to promote it's lies like Phil "bring it on" Plait.

http://www.badastronomy.com/pr/images/plait_dryden.jpg

mandelbrot

01-12-2011, 11:55 PM

Snigger. If you like, I can go back and quote Stelios's huge blunders.

ETA: and yours.

Hhmm. I wait with baited breath. :rolleyes:

headlikearock

02-12-2011, 03:33 AM

Wrong, just so wrong. Do some research.

Why do research when all you need is rhetoric and incredulity?

apollo_gnomon

02-12-2011, 03:53 AM

Hhmm. I wait with baited breath. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should stop eating the worms and just put them on the hook.

headlikearock

02-12-2011, 04:03 AM

I find it curious how Hoaxers are strangely unable to make decent websites.

I have done that for a living, for a range of global companies.

Yet all the hoax believers can churn out are websites like Homer Simpsons Jebus website.

Do you think there might be a reason for that?

Think before you answer, because I know why.

That website is utterly hilarious! The content, that is. An exercise in stupidity. I almost suspect it may have been done as a wind-up.

This one is especially delicious.

http://apolloinsider.bravehost.com/index_files/012f57c0.jpg

Trespass vehicles were placed on all approach vehicle tracks some distance from the test site. The staff on 'trespass vehicles' had view scopes to assess the threat posed to the Apollo test. One such trespass vehicle is shown left, with 'heavy man' James Crossan ready to turn any individuals away, he's even scowling at the cameraman as though he shouldn't be there.

You're left wondering, did the author of the Nasascam site simply make up this stuff for a laugh, is he deliberately lying to fool the credulous and the unwary (who he knows will simply take his claims at face value), or is he an idiot? Take your pick. I vote for all three!

fiveonit

02-12-2011, 04:30 AM

All the want to be geologists ...

Hmmmmm. People in glass houses...

... that think they can study a bit of sand and proclaim it came from the moon are kidding themselves. Most of them have studied a piece of grit encapsulated in a plastic disk courtesy of nasa.

And what qualifications do you have in the study of Geology? Oh.. that's right. NONE!

Not all geologists are moonies but some have swallowed the tale of were the sand has originated. A strange cross between moonie and geologist, Loonologist a dying profession.

Excuse me ladies and gentlemen, will all the trained and qualified geologists throughout the world the give even half of a rat's rear-end what some untrained, hoax believing nutty-bar thinks, please raise your hand.

response: <crickets chirping>

abaddon_ire

02-12-2011, 07:25 AM

Hhmm. I wait with baited breath. :rolleyes:
OK, can sublimation occur in a vacuum?

rodin

02-12-2011, 08:11 AM

OK, can sublimation occur in a vacuum?

Of course. Why do you ask?

abaddon_ire

02-12-2011, 09:34 AM

Of course. Why do you ask?

Because Stelios claims it is impossible.

stelios

02-12-2011, 09:50 AM

Because Stelios claims it is impossible.
Sad and pathetic.
You and your gang have lost all the main arguments and now you resort to that?

So explain to everyone in your words EXACTLY how, in 1969 on the Moon during lunar daytime in bright sunshine, did ice form.
Because in order for your theory to work water vapour must become ice and as you know the temperature was too high and the pressure too low for ice to form.

I dont expect you will make your case because you seem incapable of posting more than a one liner.

Sublimation is the process of transition of a substance eg: water from the solid phase eg: ice to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase.
Here is a diagram which explains it better.
Ask yourselves what is the temperature on the Moon and what is the level of pressure.
Then you can work out whether ice can form or not.
I say it cannot form and therefore all of NASA's claims are BS

http://www.cims.nyu.edu/~gladish/teaching/eao/water-phase-diagram.jpg

truegroup

02-12-2011, 11:07 AM

Sad and pathetic.

Don't put yourself down.

You and your gang have lost all the main arguments and now you resort to that?

You live in lala land stelios. The main arguments being what exactly? Magic rocks that you ignored my posts about? Aluminium's reflective properties? Gravitational effects of objects and dust? Sublimation not working in a vacuum? Orbits are not in freefall?

You personally contribute to the general ignorance of Apollo with some skill. I have yet to see you 'win' a single argument.

So explain to everyone in your words EXACTLY how, in 1969 on the Moon during lunar daytime in bright sunshine, did ice form.

Ad nauseum. The sublimation plate is exposed to vacuum. The plate is behind layers of beta cloth and multi layers of heat reflective materials.

Water boils at lower temperature, loses it's energy and freezes. The ice forms a seal, cools the circulating water, which in turn passes heat to the ice, plus the increase of pressure from the pump and it sublimates to vapour. The process begins again.

Because in order for your theory to work water vapour must become ice and as you know the temperature was too high and the pressure too low for ice to form.

Bullshit. The temperatures of the Moon are for the surface, there is no temperature in a vacuum. Things heat up from radiated heat from the Sun, they in turn radiate heat in shaded areas. The inside of the PLSS is not receiving any radiated heat from the Sun.

I dont expect you will make your case because you seem incapable of posting more than a one liner.

As opposed to you spamming the same crap over and over.

Sublimation is the process of transition of a substance eg: water from the solid phase eg: ice to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase.

Huzzah, he finally gets it, but as usual fails to concede his original statement as wrong.:rolleyes:

Here is a diagram which explains it better.

Not to you it seems:rolleyes:

Ask yourselves what is the temperature on the Moon and what is the level of pressure.

I asked myself. The temperature of the SURFACE has a range that can easily be referenced and worked out. The pressure is zero.

http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature

"For an angle of 30 degrees, (maximum temperature for a horizontal surface at latitude 30 degrees N or S, or equatorial temperature at roughly plus or minus two Earth days from lunar "noon"), T is then 380 K, or 107 degrees C. At 60 degrees, the temperature is still 331 K or 58 degrees C. At 75 degrees we reach about 281 K or 8 degrees C."

So the surface temperatures for Apollo ranged from about 8 degrees C to about 75 degrees C. Things orthogonal to the Sun will heat up according to their reflective properties.

MYLAR
BoPET - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Biaxially oriented PET film can be metallized by vapor deposition of a thin film of evaporated aluminum, gold, or other metal onto it. The result is much less permeable to gases (important in food packaging) and reflects up to 99% of light, including much of the infrared spectrum."

They used aluminised mylar, and as we know, aluminium reflects up to 95% of infrared. There were 5 layers of it!

Then you can work out whether ice can form or not.

Yes, I worked it out. It forms just fine in a vacuum.

I say it cannot form and therefore all of NASA's claims are BS

"I say blahblah......" When you use that phrase, it can be taken as read that your claim is a tad on the wrong side.:rolleyes:

atlantabizgal

02-12-2011, 06:36 PM

Alright guys, everyone has an opinion and is entitled to express it. Let's get the insults down to zero. If you have a point make it w/out insulting your partner in debate.

abaddon_ire

02-12-2011, 09:27 PM

Sad and pathetic.
You and your gang have lost all the main arguments and now you resort to that?

So explain to everyone in your words EXACTLY how, in 1969 on the Moon during lunar daytime in bright sunshine, did ice form.
The water was not in direct sunlight, it was inside the PLSS and was thermally isolated. This method of cooling is still used today on the ISS.

http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
That guy got a PhD for his analysis of the porous plate sublimator.

Because in order for your theory to work water vapour must become ice and as you know the temperature was too high and the pressure too low for ice to form.
The temperature of what?

I dont expect you will make your case because you seem incapable of posting more than a one liner.
And you seem to be unable to coherently answer those. Go read that doctoral thesis and point out where exactly it is wrong.

Sublimation is the process of transition of a substance eg: water from the solid phase eg: ice to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase.
Yes, we know.

Here is a diagram which explains it better.
Yes, I did study physics.

Ask yourselves what is the temperature on the Moon and what is the level of pressure.

The temperature of what?

Then you can work out whether ice can form or not.
I did and it can

I say it cannot form and therefore all of NASA's claims are BS
Which all leaves you in the untenable position that the shuttle is fake, Hubble is fake. Good luck with that. I look forward to your proof.

Why is it, in your opinion, that every scientist in the world disagrees with you.

Porous plate sublimation is so good as a heat rejection methodology, that it was designed into the X38, and furthermore was based on an Apollo design.
There are no moving parts and little energy consumption.

http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
That guy got a PhD for his analysis of the porous plate sublimator.

And Rice University in Houston gets MASSIVE funding from NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1489.html

You didnt think that through very well did you Doctor Zoidberg?

stelios

03-12-2011, 06:25 AM

Which all leaves you in the untenable position that the shuttle is fake, Hubble is fake. Good luck with that. I look forward to your proof.

ETA also the Russian and Chinese space programs are fake too, right?
Very stupid attempt.
I believe the Russian and Chinese and Indian and Iranian and European space programmes are real.
I watched them on tv.
I believe the Space Shuttle and the space station are real too.
So whatever game you are trying to play your kite aint gonna fly.

So tell us all do you believe the Shuttle was fake?
Do you believe the Russian and Chinese and Indian and Iranian and European space programmes are fake?

So now we all agree.
How about you finally owning up to the fact that you dont know jack about any of this stuff and you should just go back to being one of the watchers cos you just aint up to going toe to toe with any of us.

stelios

03-12-2011, 06:33 AM

Excuse me ladies and gentlemen, will all the trained and qualified geologists throughout the world the give even half of a rat's rear-end what some untrained, hoax believing nutty-bar thinks, please raise your hand.

response: <crickets chirping>
I swear down some of you people must be living in institutions.

How about you snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
Give us an example of a geologist, one who is not affiliated with NASA or with a NASA funded university.
And that geologist has had access to Moon rocks and Lunar meteorites to examine and compare.
So how about it?
Take your time.
After youve had your medication ofcourse.

apollo_gnomon

03-12-2011, 07:22 AM

Given your incredible track record for Gish Galloping at full speed away from evidence provided, why would I bother finding you links to obscure geology reports AGAIN?

You didn't read them last time and have obviously chosen to forget that they were provided.

European and Russian scientists have studied lunar samples. Anyone can apply. Even you, if you bothered to learn geology and do the paperwork. And no, they don't just send out little plexiglas-embedded chips of stuff. If you present them with a valid reason you can even request a sample for destructive testing.

Not one geologist has suggested the Apollo Lunar samples are false. Geologists study the exterior of the rocks to learn about things like solar wind and cosmic radiation, by studying the very features that would be burned off by passage through the atmosphere.

apollo_gnomon

03-12-2011, 07:26 AM

Very stupid attempt.
I believe the Russian and Chinese and Indian and Iranian and European space programmes are real.
I watched them on tv.
I believe the Space Shuttle and the space station are real too.
So whatever game you are trying to play your kite aint gonna fly.

So tell us all do you believe the Shuttle was fake?
Do you believe the Russian and Chinese and Indian and Iranian and European space programmes are fake?

So now we all agree.
How about you finally owning up to the fact that you dont know jack about any of this stuff and you should just go back to being one of the watchers cos you just aint up to going toe to toe with any of us.

If the Shuttle and ISS missions are real, then how do the astronauts keep cool and remove respiration moisture from the suit's atmosphere during spacewalks?

2. They don't have warm water circulating around them that creates a much more dynamic system.

3. How do you know they aren't in a constant state of flux, sublimating and refreezing in situ, just like the PLSS cooling mechanism? Water vapour has been observed coming off them and sublimation differences have been found in different planets:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=462493

http://planetfacts.org/sublimation/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090703031534AALVUAM

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989LPI....20.1058S

Five minutes of googling finds that sublimation does occur in the rings, very slowly because of the much lower temperatures involved, and refreezing occurs as soon as the water vapour finds itself next to something very cold again, ie another particle of ice or dust.

abaddon_ire

03-12-2011, 11:58 AM

I swear down some of you people must be living in institutions.

How about you snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
Give us an example of a geologist, one who is not affiliated with NASA or with a NASA funded university.
And that geologist has had access to Moon rocks and Lunar meteorites to examine and compare.
So how about it?
Take your time.
After youve had your medication ofcourse.

Here you go.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/531.abstract

I suppose you think NASA paid them off too.

abaddon_ire

03-12-2011, 12:06 PM

Very stupid attempt.
I believe the Russian and Chinese and Indian and Iranian and European space programmes are real.
I watched them on tv.
I believe the Space Shuttle and the space station are real too.

Do you believe everything you see on TV?
They all use porous plate sublimation, so you have to admit it is a real technology.

So whatever game you are trying to play your kite aint gonna fly.

No game, just pointing out your errors.

So tell us all do you believe the Shuttle was fake?
Do you believe the Russian and Chinese and Indian and Iranian and European space programmes are fake?

All real. All use porous plate sublimation.
You fail.

So now we all agree.
How about you finally owning up to the fact that you dont know jack about any of this stuff and you should just go back to being one of the watchers cos you just aint up to going toe to toe with any of us.
How about you lose the attitude.

dreamweaver

03-12-2011, 12:09 PM

How about you finally owning up to the fact that you dont know jack about any of this stuff and you should just go back to being one of the watchers cos you just aint up to going toe to toe with any of us.

Could you explain how being, say, a pizza delivery man or minicab operator would make someone more qualified to pontificate on scientific issues than all the world's qualified scientists? What practical knowledge do you think such people could bring to the discussion?

stelios

03-12-2011, 02:57 PM

Here you go.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/531.abstract

I suppose you think NASA paid them off too.
Well done, you are making an effort and i applaud you for that.
The link seems to look good until we see the date that it was first published.
30/01/1970
Remind us when the Apollo flag pole planting took place?
20/07/1969
So in a very short time these Finns were able to acquire NASA samples and analyse them and publish the results.
And say they were unlike anything they had seen before.

A crystalline rock, a vesicular rock, and a dust sample returned by Apollo 11 were chemically analyzed by several methods. The compositions of these samples are unlike that of any known rock or meteorite.
Far from proving men walked on the Moon this simply confirms that they didnt know. Lets not forget your fellow believers who state that Lunar meteorites were only identified in 1982. So in january 1970 the Finns would not have known that these were not Lunar meteorite samples.

Good Attempt though.

moving finger

03-12-2011, 04:23 PM

Well done, you are making an effort and i applaud you for that.
The link seems to look good until we see the date that it was first published.
30/01/1970
Remind us when the Apollo flag pole planting took place?
20/07/1969
So in a very short time these Finns were able to acquire NASA samples and analyse them and publish the results.
And say they were unlike anything they had seen before.

Far from proving men walked on the Moon this simply confirms that they didnt know. Lets not forget your fellow believers who state that Lunar meteorites were only identified in 1982. So in january 1970 the Finns would not have known that these were not Lunar meteorite samples.

Good Attempt though.

Circular logic.

They had meteorite samples, from the Antarctic, as you are constantly reminding us. They were nothing like those. What it confirms is that they were unlike any other sample they had ever seen. Which kind of confirms that they weren't meteorite samples, or any other kind of terrestrial sample. They were from the Moon, and the Finns were quite happy to accept that.

mandelbrot

03-12-2011, 04:26 PM

3. How do you know they aren't in a constant state of flux, sublimating and refreezing in situ, just like the PLSS cooling mechanism? Water vapour has been observed coming off them and sublimation differences have been found in different planets:

I can accept this, if you are indeed offering it in the form of a question, and something not quite verified. As noted in the Electric Universe model, there could be other explanations about the composition of the Saturn Rings:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110824daughter.htm

In an Electric Universe, the charged moons and the charged rings around Saturn are alternately repelling and attracting each other as they move through the gas giant's plasma sheath. Electric discharges from Saturn might be what created its rings and moons in the first place, so electricity is most likely responsible for their appearance and arrangement.

The recently renamed Cassini-Solstice mission, launched from Cape Canaveral on October 15, 1997, has found electromagnetic fields extending from Saturn to most of its moons. Tethys and Dione are both known to be interacting with Saturn's electric field, ejecting "great streams of particles into space," according to NASA officials.

The Saturnian system is not a neutral environment, it is highly charged and electrically active. Many features, particularly in the ring structure, cannot easily be explained. "Spokes" hovering above the ring plane, bands that are sorted by chemical composition, as well as the X-rays that the rings emit, falsify standard explanations.

At some point in the past, according to Electric Universe theory, Saturn underwent a violent spasm that unleashed plasma discharges throughout the Solar System. Any celestial bodies within range would have been blasted by powerful currents, intense radiation, and heat from electromagnetic induction. All of that energy might have also assisted in creating the distinctive patterns seen on Saturn's moon Helene.

In addition, there is some suggestion that the Earth once had rings much like Saturn's:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v285/n5763/abs/285309a0.html

The terminal Eocene event: formation of a ring system around the Earth?

The most profound climatic event of the Tertiary was the terminal Eocene event at −34 Myr (ref. 1). Botanical data indicate that winters became much more severe, while summer temperatures were little affected. An explanation in terms of a change in the space direction of the Earth's axis is not dynamically acceptable. On the other hand, an ecological disaster of some kind apparently struck the Radiolaria at this time2; the latter event is accurately correlated (to a few tens of thousands of years) with the formation of the greatest known tektite strewn field, the so-called North American strewn field, which has recently been shown to extend at least half-way around the Earth3. It is suggested here that tektites and microtektites which accompanied this fall, but missed the Earth, organized themselves into a ring system like that of Saturn. The shadow of the rings fell on the winter hemisphere and so produced the observed cooling. The ring lasted between one and several million years.

Perhaps, as the Electric Universe suggests, just as with comets, the rings are not necessarily consistent with being made entirely of ice.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100416spokes.htm

The rings are composed of large chunks of material, but they contain a high percentage of ultra-fine dust that is easily ionized. Dusty plasma tends to concentrate the discharges in the plane of the rings. The finely divided ring particles become oppositely charged and move out of and above the rings.

What reason is there for Saturn's magnetospheric discharges then and now? In the 1980s, the Sun's electric activity, the solar sunspot cycle, was at its maximum. Today the solar cycle has just passed its minimum phase. It is known that the activity of solar maximum creates electrical effects on Earth: brighter auroras, disrupted power transmission, and satellite communication problems.

Are the spokes of Saturn an expression of the sunspot cycle? Do they appear at solar maximum and minimum because that is when the magnetic polarity reverses on the Sun and Saturn is at a specific orientation? Further analysis of data from Cassini may provide answers to those questions.

http://www.universetoday.com/15300/what-are-saturns-rings-made-of/

Saturn is sometimes called the Jewel of the Solar System because its ring system looks like a crown. The rings are well known, but often the question what are Saturns rings made of arises. Those rings are made up of dust, rock, and ice accumulated from passing comets, meteorite impacts on Saturns moons, and the planets gravity pulling material from the moons. Some of the material in the ring system are as small as grains of sand, others are larger than tall buildings, while a few are up to a kilometer across. Deepening the mystery about the moons is the fact that each ring orbits at a different speed around the planet.

Saturn is not the only planet with a ring system. All of the gas giants have rings, in fact. Saturns rings stand out because they are the largest and most vivid. The rings have a thickness of up to one kilometer and they span up to 482,000 km from the center of the planet.

truegroup

03-12-2011, 04:41 PM

Well done, you are making an effort and i applaud you for that.
The link seems to look good until we see the date that it was first published.
30/01/1970
Remind us when the Apollo flag pole planting took place?
20/07/1969
So in a very short time these Finns were able to acquire NASA samples and analyse them and publish the results.

Wow, fancy that. They actually acquired a sample and analysed it in under six months. Phew. Your 'hoax' proof is just so compelling:rolleyes:

stelios

03-12-2011, 05:19 PM

1. They are much further away from the sun.
What difference would that make?
Your sublimator plate theory relies on being in the shade and so not exposed to sunlight.
So why would ice anywhere else in the solar system behave differently.
Unless ofcourse your theory is flawed.

abaddon_ire

03-12-2011, 05:39 PM

1. They are much further away from the sun.

What difference would that make?
Your sublimator plate theory relies on being in the shade and so not exposed to sunlight.
So why would ice anywhere else in the solar system behave differently.
Unless ofcourse your theory is flawed.

It makes a difference because they receive less heat from the Sun.

Also, how many porous plates are there around Saturn?
Answer: None.
Ergo, the exact same mechanism cannot apply.

It's apples and oranges, I'm afraid.

truegroup

03-12-2011, 05:44 PM

What difference would that make?
Your sublimator plate theory relies on being in the shade and so not exposed to sunlight.
So why would ice anywhere else in the solar system behave differently.

The PLSS has a pump which creates pressure and it has warm water circulating from the natural body heat.

Unless ofcourse your theory is flawed.

Or unless you have no idea at all about any of this:rolleyes:

abaddon_ire

03-12-2011, 06:38 PM

I swear down some of you people must be living in institutions.

How about you snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
Give us an example of a geologist, one who is not affiliated with NASA or with a NASA funded university.
And that geologist has had access to Moon rocks and Lunar meteorites to examine and compare.
So how about it?
Take your time.
After youve had your medication ofcourse.
Leaving aside your abusive behaviour, You asked and you received one, in Finland no less.

Well done, you are making an effort and i applaud you for that.
The link seems to look good until we see the date that it was first published.
30/01/1970
Remind us when the Apollo flag pole planting took place?
20/07/1969
So in a very short time these Finns were able to acquire NASA samples and analyse them and publish the results.
And say they were unlike anything they had seen before.

Far from proving men walked on the Moon this simply confirms that they didnt know. Lets not forget your fellow believers who state that Lunar meteorites were only identified in 1982. So in january 1970 the Finns would not have known that these were not Lunar meteorite samples.

Good Attempt though.

Hear that squeaking sound? That is you moving the goalposts, on which you have installed wheels.

You got what you asked for, now it is up to you to provide evidence why A11 samples could not be delivered to Finland 6 months after A11 returned.

headlikearock

03-12-2011, 06:50 PM

What difference would that make?
Your sublimator plate theory relies on being in the shade and so not exposed to sunlight.
So why would ice anywhere else in the solar system behave differently.
Unless ofcourse your theory is flawed.

Give it up Stelios! Porous plate sublimation is a proven technology outside of Apollo. Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the science behind the technology doesn't prove that the technology doesn't work.

rodin

03-12-2011, 09:34 PM

Ice on the Moon

Right now Earth loses H and He to space. How? Because the thermal energy (kinetic) at the temperature of the exosphere is higher than the pull of gravity.

Moon 'exosphere' I guess is at a similar temp to Earth, being essentially 'space' with a thin scattering of molecules only occasionally colliding. Moon gravity is a sixth of Earth's so can't hold onto molecules six times heavier than He at least. H2O is less than 6 times He mass, so there is an argument it should escape into space ergo Moon's surface should be dry (there is precious little He on Earth)

Most terrestrial helium present today is created by the natural radioactive decay of heavy radioactive elements (thorium and uranium), as the alpha particles emitted by such decays consist of helium-4 nuclei. This radiogenic helium is trapped with natural gas in concentrations up to 7% by volume, from which it is extracted commercially by a low-temperature separation process called fractional distillation.

Helium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note : I presume here the sunny side and dark side of the Moon will have similar differential Solar energy as the exosphere of Earth

Exosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit

there is a difference - H20 forms hydrogen bonds, and therefore will be less likely to sublimate into the gas phase whereas He is monatomic gas. However if H2O is 'boiled off' the Sun-facing surface then it would become a gas with precious little H bonding action (only during transient collisions)

moving finger

03-12-2011, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by stelios
What difference would that make?
Your sublimator plate theory relies on being in the shade and so not exposed to sunlight.
So why would ice anywhere else in the solar system behave differently.
Unless ofcourse your theory is flawed.

It's not 'my theory', it's thermodynamics, generally believed in throughout the scientific world by people who understand things.

It was brucel who posted it as some sort of proof that there was no sublimation in a vacuum, take up any problems you have with sublimation occurring in Saturn's rings with him. Ice isn't behaving differently in Saturn's rings, it's just behaving at a different rate because it is in a different thermal environment. The laws of physics there are the same as here. Sublimation can occur in a vacuum. Deal with it.

stelios

04-12-2011, 07:14 AM

Leaving aside your abusive behaviour, You asked and you received one, in Finland no less.
You got what you asked for, now it is up to you to is provide evidence why A11 samples could not be delivered to Finland 6 months after A11 returned.
Well one geologist is better than none and as i said already i appreciate your endeavour.

The samples could not "delivered to Finland 6 months after A11" because the document itself was published in January which is less than 6 months after A11.
Dont forget the quarantine period too. Dont forget the scientific paper would need to be written well in advance of publication and the actual printing would need to be done prior. In 1969 there would have been typesetting errors, editing and litho printing plates needing to be made.
So yes it is quite odd that the detailed scientific analysis of the Apollo samples happened so very quickly and yet no surprise that the results were that the sample was:
The compositions of these samples are unlike that of any known rock or meteorite.

Well one geologist is better than none and as i said already i appreciate your endeavour.

The samples could not "delivered to Finland 6 months after A11" because the document itself was published in January which is less than 6 months after A11.
Dont forget the quarantine period too. Dont forget the scientific paper would need to be written well in advance of publication and the actual printing would need to be done prior. In 1969 there would have been typesetting errors, editing and litho printing plates needing to be made.
So yes it is quite odd that the detailed scientific analysis of the Apollo samples happened so very quickly and yet no surprise that the results were that the sample was:
The compositions of these samples are unlike that of any known rock or meteorite.

Analysis of rock materials doesn't actually take that long. What takes time in academia is writing up results and then getting them published. They were obviously keen to get their results out there, which is also part of the academic game. Publish and publish first is the way academia works.

You've managed, again, to miss the point. Of all the samples ever examined, including meteorite samples (which, don't forget, have been through the Earth's atmosphere with all the frictional heating degradation that implies), those lunar samples were unlike any they had ever seen. So, assuming they had seen antarctic metoerites (and they might not have, I'm guessing you haven't paid to see the full journal article either) they found the lunar samples weren't like them. Quite good evidence that they weren't found on earth.

You've also managed to miss the point, again, of that cosmos magazine article. The report concerns a single meteorite that is significant because it consists of material not sampled by the Apollo programme. Nowhere does it say that no-one went to the moon. It does not say anywhere that no lunar meteorite matches an Apollo sample. In fact the inference is that most lunar meteorites match those brought back by the Astronauts.

You can read more about all this in the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter, which is where that article gets its information. Who publishes that?

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amn.cfm#342

Specifically, it's in this one: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnsep06/AMNsep06.pdf

And specifically this:

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/amn/amnsep06/petdesmil05035.cfm

Using NASA data stelios? Finally you admit they are a reliable source.

Here's some more about that meteorite:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2008/pdf/2423.pdf

The low surface irradiation and low maturity of MET 01210, which are similar to those of Apollo 16 regolith breccias,
represent ancient regolith residing beneath the surface
regolith

Hmm - geologists comparing it to an actual Apollo sample there - not good for you is it.

How about this one:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/1867.pdf

Our sample of MIL 05035 does not have a negative Eu-anomaly (Fig.3a) typical of the majority of mare basalts. It also has a low REE content, with a C1-normalised profile [9] typical of being dominated by pyroxene phases (positive LREE slope, and a relatively flat HREE profile: (La/Lu)n=0.4,
(Tb/Lu)n=1.4). This profile is similar to that measured in the LM Yamoto-
793169 and Asuka-881757 [3,5] (Fig.3a), although in comparison MIL 05035 is depleted in REE concentration and also notably lower in bulk TiO2 content (Y
and A are reported to have 1.5-2.5 wt. % TiO2 [3,5]). MIL 05035s bulk REEs are also much lower than those in Apollo and LM low-Ti samples, but are akin to concentrations measured in A17 and Luna 24 VLT mare basalts.

Hmm, again the comparison with Apollo samples, but no dismissal of Apollo.

What about: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/2110.pdf

The feldspathic component in MET has a composition that is intermediate to Apollo 16 soil [15] and the average composition of the feldspathic lunar meteorites [

There we go again, Apollo 16 samples as a reference point.

Or http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/Zhang_et_al_2010.pdf

Among the samples collected by Apollo and LUNA missions, only the Apollo 11 and 17 samples contain old mare basalts up to 3.7-3.9 Ga, comparable to MIL 05035 and Asuka 881757 [11]. However, most of these Apollo mare basalts are high-Ti basalts (TiO2>6 wt%) [24]. Although very low-Ti basalts were also discovered amongst the Apollo 17 samples, olivine in these basalts is Mg-rich (Fo7653 [24]), in sharp contrast to those in MIL 05035 and Asuka 881757. Thus, MIL 05035 could not have been derived from the same source of the Apollo and LUNA mare basalts. Hiesinger et al. [25, 26] reported crater size-frequency ages of lunar nearside mare basalts.

Among the studied nearside mare basalts, the probable source regions
for MIL 05035 are the southwest of mare Australe (A1~3.88 Ga or A2 ~3.80 Ga), the middle part (HU1 ~3.84/3.94 Ga, HU2 and HU3 ~3.77 Ga) in mare Humboldtianum based only on age similarity. However, combining Ti concentration and (87Rb/86Sr)source ratio, the most probable source for MIL 05035 is the mare Australe [11].

Based on isochron ages and geochemical data, Nyquist et al. [14] suggested LAP 02205 could have formed in a source region near the Apollo 12 site. However, the baddeleyite Pb/Pb age (≥3.55 Ga) of LAP 02224 is much
older than Apollo 12 low-Ti basalts (~3.15 Ga [27]). Since the precise crystallization age of LAP 02224 remains unknown, the possible source region of LAP lunar meteorites will still be an open question.

Great efforts have been made to establish the correlation between chemical compositions (bulk TiO2) of mare basalts and crystallization ages [28]. Except a few pre-mare basalts having ages of 3.9 to 4.35 Ga (aluminous low-Ti basalt [1]; very low-Ti basalt [2]), Apollo 11 and 17 high-Ti mare basalts are relatively old, ranging in age from 3.53.9 Ga. Low-Ti (1.5 wt%6 wt% TiO2) mare basalt samples are younger in the range of 3.1 to 3.4 Ga. And most very low-Ti basalts (<1.5 wt% TiO2) are much younger (e.g., 3.23.3 Ga for LUNA 24).

Our LAP 02224 crystallization age is much older than most other low-Ti mare basalts, indicating that low-Ti basaltic volcanism seems to have spanned a longer duration than has been thought [29, 30]. MIL 05035 is also older than most very low-Ti mare basalts (e.g., LUNA 24), indicating that very low-Ti basalts have a large variation in age (2.93.9 Ga) [11, 16, 17, 31] and a long duration (~1 Ga) of volcanism.

Lots of Apollo references there, but no denial of their authenticity, or the Russian LUNA samples, which are the same as Apollo. Take a look at the list of authors too. Notice anything?

Or this: http://www.freewebs.com/jmdday/liuetal_maps_2009.pdf

Which has a nice table showing that the amount of pyroxene and feldspar in that meteorite is remarkably similar to Apollo samples,, and also says:

The REEs of these primary pyroxenes are similar to pyroxenes in Apollo 15 low-Ti, quartz-normative basalts

REE stands for Rare Earth Element. Also this, from the same article, shows how they reference Apollo material in their work:

It is highly probable that MIL 05035 was derived from a fractionated melt derived from a depleted source on the Moon. The ages of MIL 05035, as well as A-881757 and Y-793169 (3.73.9 Ga) imply melting of this source prior to Apollo-sampled, high-Ti mare basalt (3.63.8 Ga)

I'm sure you'll also agree after reading thos articles that the lunar origin of the meteorites is also determined by the mineral ratios found in them that are common to lunar samples brought back by Apollo, even though the overall mineral composition is different. Levels of titanium oxide are also significant.

What the reports are really saying is that it is not so much the mineral composition that is significant, but the treatment that those minerals have had, which suggest violent impact.

Not one of the references above dispute the origin of the Apollo samples. In fact, the Apollo samples are integral to their conclusions.

stelios

04-12-2011, 08:55 PM

Circular logic.

They had meteorite samples, from the Antarctic, as you are constantly reminding us. They were nothing like those.
Can you prove that the Finns were given Lunar meteorites with which to compare the NASA samples?
Do you have anything to suggest they had conducted any similar studies in the past?
I mean if we google their names only this one document comes up and access to the actual document is restricted.
As i said the only conclusion they have made is that the samples are unlike anything else but we know today that the Apollo samples are exactly the same as Lunar meteorites.
Do you know if any geologists peer reviewed the Finn's findings?

apollo_gnomon

04-12-2011, 09:06 PM

Lunar meteorites had not been identified as such in 1970. The surface features of ANY meteorite, of any origin, are not consistent with having spent time on the lunar surface, undisturbed, exposed to solar wind and micrometeorites for millions of years.

Any geology UNDERGRADUATE would know the difference between a meteorite and something that had not passed through the earth's atmosphere at high velocity.

stelios

04-12-2011, 09:15 PM

A crystalline rock, a vesicular rock, and a dust sample returned by Apollo 11 were chemically analyzed by several methods. The compositions of these samples are unlike that of any known rock or meteorite.
A Vesicular rock is simply a volcanic rock characterised by being pitted with many cavities (known as vesicles) at its surface and inside.
So i assume the dust sample could have simply been ground from any larger sample.
A crystalline rock is simply any rock composed entirely of crystallized minerals.

There is no reason why any one of several suspected Lunar meteorites gathered in 1967 during Von Braun's mission to Antarctica could not have provided the dust sample, the crystalline rock sample and the vesicular rock sample too.

Can you explain how the results were published so quickly?

truegroup

04-12-2011, 10:00 PM

So i assume the dust sample could have simply been ground from any larger sample.

Yeah, well don't do that stelios, you're not a geologist, you know naff all about it. I'm betting you haven't even read any of the soil reports showing astonishing variance, NO signs of terrestrial weathering, extremely fine particles with jagged edges and all with signs of cosmic exposure.

Magic pulverising machines would not be able to fool a geologist.:rolleyes:

There is no reason why any one of several suspected Lunar meteorites gathered in 1967 during Von Braun's mission to Antarctica could not have provided the dust sample, the crystalline rock sample and the vesicular rock sample too.

Oh get real:rolleyes: A highly public rocket scientist sent on a rock hunt. HB blahblah.

Moon rock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Since 1980, over 120 lunar meteorites representing about 60 different meteorite fall events (none witnessed) have been collected on Earth, with a total mass of over 48 kg. About one third of these were discovered by US and Japanese teams searching for Antarctic meteorites (e.g., ANSMET), with most of the remainder having been discovered by collectors in the desert regions of northern Africa and Oman."

In 32 years since they have been looking in earnest, barely a 10th of the total Apollo samples has been found worldwide!

Can you explain how the results were published so quickly?

Can you explain how long it should take and why? Please cite examples.

abaddon_ire

04-12-2011, 10:26 PM

Note : I presume here the sunny side and dark side of the Moon will have similar differential Solar energy as the exosphere of Earth

there is a difference - H20 forms hydrogen bonds, and therefore will be less likely to sublimate into the gas phase whereas He is monatomic gas. However if H2O is 'boiled off' the Sun-facing surface then it would become a gas with precious little H bonding action (only during transient collisions)

Um, you do know that all of the moon surface is exposed to the same amount of sunlight right?

There is no "dark side" of the moon in a permanent sense, anymore that there is a "dark side" of the Earth.

abaddon_ire

04-12-2011, 10:36 PM

Can you explain how the results were published so quickly?

Yup. Chemical analysis just doesn't take very long.

You asked for just one NASA independent analysis, and you got one as requested.

You then rolled those goalposts to claim that such analysis could not be accomplished in six months, while providing no evidence other than your incredulity.

I could provide more, but I fear I would simply hear the lonesome squeek of those wheeled goalposts moving.

Funny thing is, such evidence is not hard to find.

Research:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, make baseless claims.

abaddon_ire

04-12-2011, 10:43 PM

For the sake of completeness, here is a list of peer reviewied aarticles which cited this as a source.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918.toc

Gonna refute them all Stelios?

Because that is the mountainous task you have assumed upon yourself.

stelios

04-12-2011, 10:44 PM

You asked for just one NASA independent analysis, and you got one as requested.
Well we got a link to a non NASA source but its a shame we cant actually access the findings.
I suppose you want us to take them on trust do u?
Just like the rest of the Apollo Moon Landings Theory?

You believers really have a low margin of requirements dont you?
Me i would like to see the real results of the study.
Date they got the samples.
Form the samples came in.
Types of chemical tests carried out.
etc

truegroup

04-12-2011, 11:04 PM

Well we got a link to a non NASA source but its a shame we cant actually access the findings.

Shame? The shame is you ignore links that display them:rolleyes:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/

Yes it's a NASA site, but every single analysis has references to the people who have contributed from all over the world.

I suppose you want us to take them on trust do u?
Just like the rest of the Apollo Moon Landings Theory?

Joker. You take all the crap hoax films on face value.

You believers really have a low margin of requirements dont you?
Me i would like to see the real results of the study.
Date they got the samples.
Form the samples came in.
Types of chemical tests carried out.
etc

Haha, don't make yourself out to be some sort of expert stelios. You wouldn't recognise a meteor from a polar bear jobbie:D

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/10017.pdf

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/10072.pdf

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/10084.pdf

Those are collated reports of the 3 samples analysed (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/531.abstract), with numerous other people contributing. Now, what stunning analysis have you got for us?

Geologists know we went to the Moon. End of chat.

ianw

05-12-2011, 12:09 AM

http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae14/ianw_2010/BS.jpg

abaddon_ire

05-12-2011, 12:52 AM

Well we got a link to a non NASA source but its a shame we cant actually access the findings.
Nope, you just don't have the courage to invest a few dollars in what you believe, to be found out.

I suppose you want us to take them on trust do u?
Just like the rest of the Apollo Moon Landings Theory?

No, you are not convinced enough of your own convictions to invest the few dollars required.

You believers really have a low margin of requirements dont you?
Me i would like to see the real results of the study.

Then you simply invest a few dollars to view the results. This is beyond you?

Date they got the samples.
Form the samples came in.
Types of chemical tests carried out.
etc
Just ask. Scientists are not afraid of data.

abaddon_ire

05-12-2011, 12:54 AM

<irrelevance eviscerated>

Please try to stay on topic.

apollo_gnomon

05-12-2011, 06:15 AM

A Vesicular rock is simply a volcanic rock characterised by being pitted with many cavities (known as vesicles) at its surface and inside.

Your list of criteria is accurate but not all-inclusive. Further, the vesicles of lunar volcanic rock have indicative criteria for being ejected in 0.167g/0 bar conditions.

So i assume the dust sample could have simply been ground from any larger sample.

Any time you use the phrase "I assume" I suggest further research prior to pressing "submit reply."

A crystalline rock is simply any rock composed entirely of crystallized minerals.

Again, accurate without accuracy. The size and configuration of crystals of rocks cooled in 1/6th g is different than those which have cooled at 1 g.

Scientists study this kind of thing. That's called "science."

There is no reason why any one of several suspected Lunar meteorites gathered in 1967 during Von Braun's mission to Antarctica could not have provided the dust sample, the crystalline rock sample and the vesicular rock sample too.

No. Your lack of education is preventing your further comprehension.

Can you explain how the results were published so quickly?

Six months is "so quickly?"

moving finger

05-12-2011, 07:14 AM

The size and configuration of crystals of rocks cooled in 1/6th g is different than those which have cooled at 1 g.

That bit is really important. The nature of the crystals is determined by their mineralogy (which is different on the Moon because it has materials found there in different proportions than on Earth), by their rate of cooling (fast cooling produces micro- or even crypto-crystalline structures, slow cooling produces macro-crystalline structures), and the formational environment. This latter part is particularly relevant for the Moon because of the low gravity environment. If you know that on Earth you will always find a specific rock type formed in a certain way, and that same rock type looks completely different in the sample you have, you know that the environment in which it was formed was different even if the process that formed it was the same. Add to that deformation features that are done either during (bending or distortion of the crystal structure) or post-formation (fracturing and crushing) and you can tell a hell of a lot about how and where a rock was formed by the crystals in it.

The Apollo samples are from the Moon. Not one single person who knows anything about it has ever disputed it. They were not found on Earth. Not one single person who knows anything about it has ever disputed that either.

6 months to publish? You get a couple of lab assistants to process the samples and you do the write-up. I've personally done dozens of samples using AAS in an afternoon on a piece of steam driven antiquated equipment.

mandelbrot

05-12-2011, 09:09 PM

It appears in 1998-1999 that NASA discovered they had actually sent the Apollo missions to radioactive "hot spots" on the moon. Something they did not know at the time the Apollo missions were sent almost three decades earlier.

That's odd:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

The map on the top part of the diagram shows the distribution of the concentration of thorium (Th, in parts per million), a naturally occurring radioactive element, on the lunar surface as determined by the gamma-ray spectrometer on Lunar Prospector, which orbited the Moon in 1998 and 1999 (Lawrence et al., 2000 and Gillis et al., 2004). The center of the map shows the nearside and the left and right edges show the far side of the Moon. The locations of the six Apollo (A) and three Russian Luna (L) landing sites are indicated (all on the nearside). The bottom part of the diagram shows the concentrations of Th in lunar meteorite source craters. (This means, for example, that the LAP meteorite and the NWA 032/479 meteorite count as 1 source crater because both meteorites likely came from a single crater.) Most lunar meteorites have low Th concentrations but a few have high concentrations (see last column of the List). The figure shows that (1) the Apollo missions all landed in or near a region of the Moon with anomalously high radioactivity (the anomaly, which we call the "Procellarum KREEP Terrane") was not known at the time of Apollo site selection) and (2) most of the lunar meteorites must come from areas of the Moon that are distant from the nearside "hot spot" because they have low Th. Thus, one of the values of the lunar meteorites is that they are samples from places on the Moon that are more typical of the lunar surface (low radioactivity) than the Apollo samples. The histogram on the bottom assumes that the known lunar meteorites derive from 39 source craters. The impact-melt breccia of SaU 169 plots off scale at 30 ppm; the bar at 9.8 ppm Th represents the regolith-breccia lithology. The figure is an updated (July, 2007) version of Figure 5 of Korotev et al. (2003).

moving finger

05-12-2011, 09:56 PM

It appears in 1998-1999 that NASA discovered they had actually sent the Apollo missions to radioactive "hot spots" on the moon. Something they did not know at the time the Apollo missions were sent almost three decades earlier.

That's odd:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

Why odd? Did you read the rest of the page? It actually explains a lot about how to tell lunar samples brought back by Apollo & Luna probes and lunar meteorites. KREEP was a known lunar feature long before the prospector probe. It's referred to in this 1989 paper for a start http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989LPSC...19...19M and this from 1972 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972LPSC....3.1315W. The Luna probes had radiation measuring equipment and found variations in radioactivity level. What they didn't know about was the radioactive distribution of the Th element at a larger scale.

Several articles have already been linked to that say the same thing: the Apollo samples were not random, because the landing sites were specifically picked out for being interesting in some way, as opposed to meteorites which are effectively a random sample (although you could argue that they are a random sample of material capable of being dislodged by an impact and making it through the Earth's atmosphere) and are therefore more representative.

mandelbrot

05-12-2011, 10:28 PM

Movingfinger,

The lunar rocks are a seperate issue for me, and perhaps I should have prefaced my post with: "on a side note." The premise of my argument is that this kind of preliminary research as mentioned in my previous post was not conducted in light of the fact that the technological disadvantages of the late 60's as compared to what is being discovered today for new manned missions seems highly unbalanced.

I've been fairly consistent with offering what a lunar manned mission will require today, as opposed to the rather magical adventures of the Apollo missions. Considering that I've already linked a research paper on one of these topics regarding this issue, that being manned missions would require 1800hrs annually in an enclosed vehicle, and any outside ventures by an astronaut on the lunar surface would have to have the extra precaution of being in the vicinity of an underground bunker - and here we have that almost three decades later discovering that "all the Apollo missions" were in or near radioactive "hot spots."

Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe.

abaddon_ire

06-12-2011, 01:22 AM

Movingfinger,

The lunar rocks are a seperate issue for me, and perhaps I should have prefaced my post with: "on a side note." The premise of my argument is that this kind of preliminary research as mentioned in my previous post was not conducted in light of the fact that the technological disadvantages of the late 60's as compared to what is being discovered today for new manned missions seems highly unbalanced.

I've been fairly consistent with offering what a lunar manned mission will require today, as opposed to the rather magical adventures of the Apollo missions. Considering that I've already linked a research paper on one of these topics regarding this issue, that being manned missions would require 1800hrs annually in an enclosed vehicle, and any outside ventures by an astronaut on the lunar surface would have to have the extra precaution of being in the vicinity of an underground bunker - and here we have that almost three decades later discovering that "all the Apollo missions" were in or near radioactive "hot spots."

If NASA is an organisation which always lies, how is it you can quote them as evidence?

Circular argument. You lose.

moving finger

06-12-2011, 05:24 AM

Movingfinger,

The lunar rocks are a seperate issue for me, and perhaps I should have prefaced my post with: "on a side note." The premise of my argument is that this kind of preliminary research as mentioned in my previous post was not conducted in light of the fact that the technological disadvantages of the late 60's as compared to what is being discovered today for new manned missions seems highly unbalanced.

I've been fairly consistent with offering what a lunar manned mission will require today, as opposed to the rather magical adventures of the Apollo missions. Considering that I've already linked a research paper on one of these topics regarding this issue, that being manned missions would require 1800hrs annually in an enclosed vehicle, and any outside ventures by an astronaut on the lunar surface would have to have the extra precaution of being in the vicinity of an underground bunker - and here we have that almost three decades later discovering that "all the Apollo missions" were in or near radioactive "hot spots."

It's an interesting slant on the argument, but there are many examples of early pioneering exploration where "if we'd known then...." could have changed things a lot. Early attempts on the highest mountains were carried out in equipment that would be considered reckless and foolhardy today, and there are many first steps in a wilderness that would never have happened if health and safety considerations were taken into account. Exploration and discovery involves risks and people prepared to take them.

Our current standards in any field of human endeavour in terms of equipment required, levels of risk, precautions taken and so on are all based on hard earned and sometimes fatal lessons from the past. Modern discoveries and ideas about the lunar environment (some of which would not have been possible without the Apollo missions, which revised theories almost on the spot), and our current technological capabilities do not preclude Apollo's success. The model T Ford is just as capable of getting from one side of America to the other as any modern car, but you'd probably rather choose the latter to make the trip.

truegroup

06-12-2011, 10:20 AM

I remain dubious of Never-A-Straight-Answer.

Yet you quote a straight answer given as cause to question the Moon landings? So presumably the only time a straight answer is given is when it suits your quote mining.

The radiation issues are for longer stays, no matter what you say. When the odds of a solar flare occuring rise due to an extended stay, the odds of being too far away from safety also rise. THAT's why the recommendation is for closer proximity to shelter. Simple really.

We both know you cannot quote the differences in radiation that determine a hotspot or the actual levels for either higher or lower radioactive areas.

phrased eyebrow

06-12-2011, 04:59 PM

The model T Ford is just as capable of getting from one side of America to the other as any modern car, but you'd probably rather choose the latter to make the trip.

You can also walk across the country without a motorcar. And Model T's exist which are still operable. I get it. We can walk to the moon like we always have. As for the latter, it doesn't exist either. But we can still walk to the moon because we once took a Model T (But they don't work anymore). We even drove a Model T to the top of Everest- A more compelling and provable concept.

mandelbrot

06-12-2011, 05:08 PM

It's an interesting slant on the argument, but there are many examples of early pioneering exploration where "if we'd known then...." could have changed things a lot. Early attempts on the highest mountains were carried out in equipment that would be considered reckless and foolhardy today, and there are many first steps in a wilderness that would never have happened if health and safety considerations were taken into account. Exploration and discovery involves risks and people prepared to take them.

I'm well aware of the risks for space expeditions, even in LEO, but it doesn't follow that after the fact that these Apollo missions were discovered to have landed in or near these radiation "hot spots." No matter how you slice it, the latter doesn't comport with the logic that one must prepare for such high risk ventures before hand, especially considering the cost of such expeditions.

It also doesn't follow that NASA is merely planning for longer term manned ventures on the moon surface, because the reason NASA is exploring the prospect of an underground bunker on the moon is for the fact that it could be a matter of seconds where an astronaut would have to seek the safety of any said bunker. Furthermore, the long term ventures on the moon would be in an "enclosed vehicle" for 1800 hrs annually, and that's not much considering that there are close to 9,000 hours in a given year, which is approximately 20% hour time on the moon surface in an enclosed vehicle, no less, for the portion of a year.

moving finger

06-12-2011, 06:18 PM

I'm well aware of the risks for space expeditions, even in LEO, but it doesn't follow that after the fact that these Apollo missions were discovered to have landed in or near these radiation "hot spots." No matter how you slice it, the latter doesn't comport with the logic that one must prepare for such high risk ventures before hand, especially considering the cost of such expeditions.

It also doesn't follow that NASA is merely planning for longer term manned ventures on the moon surface, because the reason NASA is exploring the prospect of an underground bunker on the moon is for the fact that it could be a matter of seconds where an astronaut would have to seek the safety of any said bunker. Furthermore, the long term ventures on the moon would be in an "enclosed vehicle" for 1800 hrs annually, and that's not much considering that there are close to 9,000 hours in a given year, which is approximately 20% hour time on the moon surface in an enclosed vehicle, no less, for the portion of a year.

They did prepare beforehand, time and time again, hours in simulators working out all the combinations of events, Apollo 8, 9 & 10 to rehearse the off planet procedures. Apollo missions were planned to look at specific locations and it turns out they have particular hazards associated with them that they could not have anticipated at the time. You can prepare for hazards that you are aware of, you can't prepare for a hazard you have no idea exists.

NASA's plans and hypothetical studies for long term missions aren't really an issue for Apollo, as those short term missions are already done.

mandelbrot

06-12-2011, 09:43 PM

Moving finger,

With all due respect, you have not at all addressed the particulars of my previous posts. Of course they trained in preparation for the Apollo missions, but this was not my point. Your stating the obvious. What is being questioned was whether any such preparations would have been adequate compared to what is being planned for today.

1. It is hard to conceive that NASA without forewarning would have sent the Apollo missions in or near radioactive "hot spots." In fact, they couldn't, because this wasn't discovered until the technology provided by the Lunar Prospector mission in 1998-1999. If that doesn't raise red flag, it should at least give one pause for a better explanation that the mere preparation of the Apollo missions on Earth or those discovered in the Gemini LEOs.

2. The realization today is that any lunar walks outside an enclosed vehicle would have to have the astronaut within seconds, or at the very least, minutes from seeking safety protection in an underground bunker. In other words, close proximity to an underground bunker is a must for any short duration of an astronaut outside an enclosed vehicle.

Certainly, the Apollo astronauts spent more than a few minutes on the lunar surface. I suspect that any ventures to the lunar surface will be conducted by robonauts for more reasons than serving simply as preparation for manned visits, although the latter is indeed one factor.

stelios

06-12-2011, 09:45 PM

The model T Ford is just as capable of getting from one side of America to the other as any modern car, but you'd probably rather choose the latter to make the trip.
This kind of demonstrates in a nutshell the mindset of the typical believer.
They are constantly finding analogies with with to compare the Apollo Moon Landings Theory.
Unfortunately, climbing Mt Everest or swimming across the channel or driving a Model T Ford are all proven accomplishments.
The 1969 claim that men flew to the Moon and walked on it's surface has not been proven nore has it been repeated.

mandelbrot

06-12-2011, 10:23 PM

Unfortunately, climbing Mt Everest or swimming across the channel or driving a Model T Ford are all proven accomplishments.

I would add, and repeated.

truegroup

06-12-2011, 10:29 PM

I would add, and repeated.

And as relevant as one of my farts. Also repeated.;)

Also irelevant but a little less so...

Bathyscaphe Trieste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Trieste is a Swiss-designed, Italian-built deep-diving research bathyscaphe ("deep boat") with a crew of two, which reached a record maximum depth of about 10,911 metres (35,797 ft), in the deepest known part of the Earth's oceans, the Challenger Deep, in the Mariana Trench near Guam, on January 23, 1960, crewed by Jacques Piccard (son of the boat's designer Auguste Piccard) and U.S. Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh achieving the goal of Project Nekton.

Trieste remains the only manned vessel to have reached the bottom of Challenger Deep. The vessel is currently on display at the U.S. Navy Museum."

They haven't been back because of money and deadly radiation:rolleyes:

mandelbrot

06-12-2011, 10:40 PM

Evidently, truegroup cannot grasp the fundamental concept, as endowed to us by Dave McGown, that it would be impossible for us to imagine that Charles Lindbergh having flown across the Atlantic, and not have it repeated for more than forty-years - and counting.

truegroup

06-12-2011, 10:56 PM

Evidently, truegroup cannot grasp the fundamental concept, as endowed to us by Dave McGown, that it would be impossible for us to imagine that Charles Lindbergh having flown across the Atlantic, and not have it repeated for more than forty-years - and counting.

Irrelevant and tosh. I love being patronised by an HB, all this 'debate' is so compelling:rolleyes:

Not one single thing presented as hoax by your team stands up to scrutiny. Not one. All you chuck up is Weidner and McGowan and quote mined reports on long term space travel.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3417/muttley.gif

Meanwhile, how did 840lbs of Moon rocks appear and fool the entire community of geologists? I shan't ask about the weather patterns in case we get more of the comedy etchasketch routine.

Normally this is where we get a group of trolls/socks jump in with off topic gibber to sidetrack, or maybe one of your team can actually offer some debate on these?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

apollo_gnomon

06-12-2011, 11:02 PM

Dave "confirmation bias" McGowan is a fool. His entire website is one big demonstration of Argument from Incredulity based on utter ignorance of basic science.

Your example of the Lindberg flight and Truegroup's example of the Trieste are both examples of difficult tasks. Lindberg's flight was, however, NOT at the "bleeding edge" of technology, nor was it the first transatlantic flight ever.

Like the moon missions, Lindberg's flight followed years of progressive developments. His flight, like the moon landings, was a publicity stunt to meet an arbitrary and artificial benchmark. In the Lunar case, "by the end of the decade" in Lindberg's of "solo flight." How many other non-stop transatlantic solo flights in piston aircraft have there been? Can you give me some names to go look up?

The Trieste, which your confirmation bias rejects, was a singularly difficult achievement that hasn't been repeated for the same reason nobody else has flown fresh meat to the moon and back: It's expensive and lacks any intrinsic reason to bother.

mandelbrot

06-12-2011, 11:51 PM

Apollo_gnomon,

Impossible. Qualifying with an unsubstantiated claim using a subjective term as someone being "illiterate," doesn't demonstrate consideration for maintaining the integrity of the discussion.

Furthermore, you can't have it both ways, as in claiming that all the testing procedures for a 237K run to the moon was all worked out on Earth and in the research done at LEO for the Gemini missions, and also claim that the Apollo missions were of extreme complexity being the reason why they were not repeated. Technological spin off refutes your positing outright.

What has been worked out in the space missions is the LEO, and this the logical flow of technological spin off in the Shuttle missions, in that they are clearly an offshoot of the Gemini LEOs and any other Apollo preliminary preparations.

truegroup

07-12-2011, 12:17 AM

Furthermore, you can't have it both ways, as in claiming that all the testing procedures for a 237K run to the moon.....snip

It is 238,587 average (http://www.universetoday.com/38128/distance-from-earth-to-moon/)you Weidner comedian:rolleyes:

You missed this post, come on what have you got??

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060423347&postcount=1727

apollo_gnomon

07-12-2011, 12:34 AM

Apollo_gnomon,

Impossible. Qualifying with an unsubstantiated claim using a subjective term as someone being "illiterate," doesn't demonstrate consideration for maintaining the integrity of the discussion.

Furthermore, you can't have it both ways, as in claiming that all the testing procedures for a 237K run to the moon was all worked out on Earth and in the research done at LEO for the Gemini missions, and also claim that the Apollo missions were of extreme complexity being the reason why they were not repeated. Technological spin off refutes your positing outright.

What has been worked out in the space missions is the LEO, and this the logical flow of technological spin off in the Shuttle missions, in that they are clearly an offshoot of the Gemini LEOs and any other Apollo preliminary preparations.

I will retract the term "illiterate" for Dave "Argument from Incredulity" McGowan.

Your statements above mischaracterize my objections. The "extreme complexity" required to put fresh meat on the moon also includes hardware, teams of technicians and really big piles of cash.

The big piles of cash were pulled by congress. As the saying goes, "NASA put men on the moon. Congress shackled them to LEO."

The STS (Space Transportation System) required huge amounts of cash, engineering, reconfiguring of facilities and both hiring and training entire new teams of engineers, technicians and astronauts. The price for the Space Shuttle (one third of the original STS proposal) was the cancellation of the Apollo program.

In terms of "bang for the buck" sending fresh meat to the moon is a hard sell. The Viking missions to Mars, consisting of a pair of landers and a pair of orbiters, cost about $1 Billion, 1/25th the price of the Apollo program. The Viking 1 lander was operational for over 8 years.

I'm not sure what techniques or technology you think was "untested" in the Apollo program. Apollo 8 flew around the moon, 9 tested the lander in LEO and 10 flew the lander over the moon without landing.

The STS (Space Transportation System) required huge amounts of cash, engineering, reconfiguring of facilities and both hiring and training entire new teams of engineers, technicians and astronauts. The price for the Space Shuttle (one third of the original STS proposal) was the cancellation of the Apollo program.

NASA has already spent over $7.7 billion in 2009 on the current plans for a supposed return trip to the moon, which is a fine example of reinventing the wheel. In fact, because of problems with the Ares I, the money was predicted in 2009 to "swell" to $44 billion. Thing is, NASA is already talking about using the Ares V for an alleged trip back to the moon, even though the Ares I has been wrought with problems.

NASA will state it is because of the safety rules as the cause the problems, but in reality, they really do now have to prepare for an actual vehicle being sent on a 237K trip.

It looks like Ares I, the rocket being designed to carry NASA astronauts into orbit when the space shuttle retires, is in trouble. Actually, Ares I has been in trouble for a long time, but now the chickens (or are they vultures?) are coming home to roost: the Orlando Sentinel says that as early as Thursday, the White House may announce a review to look into whether to proceed with the rocket's development or switch gears and pursue other options.

As I wrote last summer, it's been clear almost from the start that Ares I was a very marginal, optimistic design, just barely adequate if everything went right. But there are always problems, and Ares I had no margin for problems.

As one underlying assumption after another has turned out to be wrong, requiring design change after design change, NASA has nevertheless clung to the same basic approach, unwilling to admit its mistake and hoping that sheer persistence would see the project through. Perhaps it could, but the price for such bullheadedness can be very high, and the budget projections are now starting to reflect that - the Sentinel says that its estimated costs through 2015 have swelled from $28 billion in 2006 to $44 billion today.

Some of us thought from the start that this was blatant empire-building. At first glance, the US's existing big rockets - Atlas V and Delta IV - seemed quite adequate for launching people and supplies into Earth orbit. (They wouldn't suffice for launching to the moon and beyond, but then, Ares I couldn't do that either - that job was assigned to its big brother, Ares V.)

NASA studied this option at some length, and decided that Atlas and Delta just weren't good enough. In particular, NASA thought it would be very expensive to modify them to meet NASA's official "human-rating" standard, which specified what a rocket had to do to be safe for launching people.

Before you state something along the lines about the payload capacity being greater in the Ares V, it really isn't that great a difference for something that technology supposedly had figured out in the 60's compared with today:

The Saturn V was 363 feet tall (with the Apollo spacecraft on top) and had a diameter of 33 feet. Ares V will be taller, at 383 feet, but will share the same 33 foot diameter. Thus, Ares V appears somewhat thinner.

http://www.thespacebuff.com/current/moon-rockets-saturn-v-vs-ares-v/

The lift capacity of the Ares V outperforms the Saturn V by a large margin. Ares can take 410,000 pounds into low earth orbit; the Saturn V carried 260,000 pounds. And, the Saturn V could send a payload of 100,000 pounds to the moon; Ares will carry 157,000 pounds.

As I stated before, we're not talking about instant launches to build a space community on the moon, but only to achieve in the first tests the capacity to send four humans to the lunar surface. It sure does sound like going back to the drawing board. In fact, they're only talking about four days more than the last Apollo missions:

Initially planned as the largest launch vehicle ever built, the Ares V has grown as engineers in NASA's Constellation Program gain a better understanding of the vehicles that will be needed to send four humans to the moon for a seven-day stay, and eventually to build on that early presence into a lunar outpost where astronauts can live for as long as six months at a time.

But even with expansion from earlier concepts to a full 10-meter diameter all the way up to the fairing that will cover the Altair lunar lander, allowing the upper stage to carry more propellant, Ares V still falls short, according to Phil Sumrall, advanced planning manager in the Exploration Launch Projects Office at Marshall Space Flight Center.

What it sounds like is that the Shuttle LEO missions have figured out how a trip to the moon could entail for the amount of time required for astronauts going to the moon, and, again, this appears to be a logical course of action for developing a new technological venture.

I wouldn't being expecting any pie in the sky long term stays on the moon or Mars, since astronauts loose about 1 - 2 percent bone mass in one month. Mars takes nine months just to get there, which is a loss of 18% bone mass just for the trip to get there.

So, just going to Mars, having the astronauts step out of the space vehicle to whistle, and then return to Earth, could result in 36 percent bone mass loss. Not to mention, it is likely one jump on to the Mars surface could result in a broken leg, since the lower portion of the body is the most affected by bone mass loss.

stelios

07-12-2011, 10:10 PM

As the saying goes, "NASA put men on the moon. Congress shackled them to LEO."
You just made that up didnt you?

apollo_gnomon

07-12-2011, 10:39 PM

Why, did you google it and get no hits? :rolleyes:

No, I didn't "just make it up" but I may be paraphrasing what was said by Robert Zubrin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in 1994 at the The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia conference.

mandelbrot

07-12-2011, 11:47 PM

Why, did you google it and get no hits? :rolleyes:

No, I didn't "just make it up" but I may be paraphrasing what was said by Robert Zubrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin) in 1994 at the Millennial Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_E ight_Easy_Steps) conference.

You are sourcing your information, right? You are compiling statements made by others on these topics and referring to some kind of reference source, right? Or does the appeal to authority prevent you from doing a very basic citation style kind of checking of information thus provided here? Right? Yes, the Internet with its available search engines is a viable reference tool, but understanding what constitutes an authority file, bias from either side, and the required techniques for a search query are also important.

Simply proclaiming someone as ignorant, doesn't suffice.

apollo_gnomon

08-12-2011, 01:12 AM

What are you going on about now?

I repeated a statement I've heard elsewhere and Stelios latched onto it for no apparent reason. I heard it in person at th 1994 conference of the Millennial Project -- a family friend did illustrations for the book and got me into the conference. Zubrin, an aerospace engineer, is not fond of some of NASA's research policies. He made the statement in question, or something like it, at the conference and I've heard some variation of it again since then.

Y'know what I think? I think you're trying to drag the conversation back into your meta-arguments about verbiage to derail the thread away from fact-based discussion.

mandelbrot

08-12-2011, 05:20 PM

Apollo_gnomon,

Who are you trying to fool? You could have easily just stated where you obtained the quote or paraphrase, and not begin it with (viz), did you google it and not find it, followed by rolling eyes, no less. It's clear that statement from you has an implied quip to it.

And now you're going to pretend that my previous post didn't have a factual component to it in bereaking down the Ares development. Wow.

moving finger

08-12-2011, 06:18 PM

Apollo_gnomon,

Who are you trying to fool? You could have easily just stated where you obtained the quote or paraphrase, and not begin it with (viz), did you google it and not find it, followed by rolling eyes, no less. It's clear that statement from you has an implied quip to it.

And now you're going to pretend that my previous post didn't have a factual component to it in bereaking down the Ares development. Wow.

If you could explain what's relevant about your Ares breakdown, maybe it would help.

mandelbrot

08-12-2011, 07:33 PM

If you could explain what's relevant about your Ares breakdown, maybe it would help.

It would prove more beneficial if you quoted any of the seven paragraphs that I wrote in that particular post, rather than some ill-fated attempt to disqualify it without mentioning the particulars therein.

moving finger

09-12-2011, 05:16 AM

It would prove more beneficial if you quoted any of the seven paragraphs that I wrote in that particular post, rather than some ill-fated attempt to disqualify it without mentioning the particulars therein.

It was not an attempt to disqualify it - there's no need for paranoia. It was a genuine question.

As far as I can tell, none of it offers any proof of an Apollo hoax. Your posts never do.

All you seem to be offering is a dislike/mistrust of NASA and their budget decisions as proof we never went to the moon. You've posted several paragraphs discussing expenditure and development of something that has nothing to do with the Apollo programme and gone "Aha! There! See!", then get all sniffy when it gets ignored. If what your posting has some relevance, it's difficult to spot, so you'll have to help us out.

apollo_gnomon

09-12-2011, 06:08 AM

I would say his posts generally lack focus and a clear thesis statement.

Reading between the lines about the Ares program is beyond my attention span limits, especially as it has F-A to do with the Apollo program. However, as I understand his concerns, the Ares launch system does not appear to be drawing from a vast wealth of previous technological developments, because they're not simply dusting off the blueprints and saying "build us 6 more of these, please."

Of course the Ares vehicles will not simply reuse the exact designs for the Saturn vehicles. Rockets are designed "top down" rather than "bottom up." You first figure out the weight of your payload and then work backwards from there. Any missions to the moon today would use vastly different design parameters than the Apollo missions. The Apollo missions were effectively "task complete" when Armstrong and Aldrin stepped foot on the USS Hornet. Everything after that was scientific make-work attempting to justify the expense of getting there the once. The Ares missions are not designed as an endpoint but rather as a beginning point -- Dubya's idiotic "Moon, Mars and Beyond" proposal that was supposed to be the salvation of his historical legacy. Pity for him, that would be like putting whip cream and a cherry on top of a cowpie.

Unless you state your thesis clearly we can't really address your concerns. I don't know if what I've said has relevance to your post or not, even though I've reread your post several times trying to make sense of it. Perhaps you need to be more committal in your statements.

phrased eyebrow

09-12-2011, 07:07 AM

The Apollo missions were effectively "task complete" when Armstrong and Aldrin stepped foot on the USS Hornet.

Qualifying success does not prove we left low earth orbit.

truegroup

09-12-2011, 08:24 AM

Qualifying success does not prove we left low earth orbit.

Mr one-liner, with never a hint of evidence.:rolleyes:

The rocks, the weather patterns, gravity, monitored radio signals both amateur and professional and nobody noticing the damn thing in orbit to name a few.

stelios

09-12-2011, 09:33 AM

Pity for him, that would be like putting whip cream and a cherry on top of a cowpie.
Youre not wrong there.
Mind you O'Bummer is just as corrupt and another sock puppet.

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2011-07-27/Obama_Bush_Jew_Israel.jpg

If NASA really sent 6 manned spacecraft to the moon in the sixties, then why in 42 years with so many technological advances havent they been back once?
Because they still dont have the technology to go to the moon, because they didnt go to the moon in the first place.

truegroup

09-12-2011, 10:31 AM

If NASA really sent 6 manned spacecraft to the moon in the sixties, then why in 42 years with so many technological advances havent they been back once?
Because they still dont have the technology to go to the moon, because they didnt go to the moon in the first place.

Ye gods, the same bullshit argument yet again. The mole is splattered.

Saturn V made it into orbit, yes or no? Surveyor made it to the Moon, yes or no? LROC made it to the Moon. Lunokhod made it to the Moon. Russia returned unmanned samples from the Moon.

What put the science experiments on the Moon? Where did 840lbs of Lunar samples come from, since only 40-60kg Lunar meteorites have been found. You never did answer how they made the magic rocks from the Rocket engineer's soopah sekrit rock gathering tour:rolleyes: Your explanation for the weather patterns is inconsistent with the Earth views. Your explanation for gravity avoided like the plague.

phrased eyebrow

09-12-2011, 02:44 PM

I like the way the more people are waking up, the more vintage footage and actual moon rock samples continue to disappear.

Just kidding of course we went to moon.

bertl

09-12-2011, 03:13 PM

I like the way the more people are waking up, the more vintage footage and actual moon rock samples continue to disappear.
Wait, what? How much of the footage from the Moon landings is now unavailable or gone?

mandelbrot

09-12-2011, 06:30 PM

The Ares missions are not designed as an endpoint but rather as a beginning point

More verbal gymnastics from you, with no sourcing of anything. As I already pointed out in a previous post, the Shuttle missions provided as what seems the logical course of technological development for testing something in LEO.

And this can be sourced as being true, since they're considering on returning to the Space Shuttle Main Engine for the Ares V to assist the latter in its first stage. The first stage, mind you. In other words, you don't galavanting to the moon, and then return to LEO research. It would be vice versa. Yeah, sure, there was the cold war, but that was chocked full of lies on both sides of the equation.

Constellation engineers are carrying out an evaluation process into a potential option of going back to the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) on the Ares V first stage, which in turn would allow a return to a five segment Solid Rocket Boosters on the giant vehicle.

... Another major factor that the study is likely to consider is that the SSME may be better suited to mitigating the plume impingement and base heating issues on Ares V, which is currently a major issue that is being worked on Ares V.

... At that time, Constellation program engineers will know if the shuttle manifest has been extended past 2010, and if the plume impingement issue with the RS-68s is still a troublesome factor  all of which will play into the hands of favoring a lifeline to the workhorse engine that has proved to be a huge success over the 25 years-plus use on the space shuttle.

The Saturn V was made to carry a 100,000 pounds; whereas, the Ares V is being built to carry 157,000 payload, but with only a difference of 57,000 pounds, NASA is researching about returning to technology that was developed for the Space Shuttle.

In addition, NASA is spending money on these new contracts of development, and it hasn't even been decided whether it is feesible (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/3173/why-we-should-not-return-moon) to place an outpost on the moon. Once and if you have an outpost on the moon, you still have the problem of having an astronaut within minutes of reaching an underground facility on the moon in case of a solar flare, and that negates the argument regarding development now is being singled out for long term stays on the moon, and that being the delay for a supposed return to the moon. Why? Because the underground bunker is going to have to be in place first, before you even consider having astronauts on the surface of the moon for a short duration.

"The Moon is totally exposed to solar flares," explains solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. "It has no atmosphere or magnetic field to deflect radiation." Protons rushing at the Moon simply hit the ground--or whoever might be walking around outside.

The Jan. 20th proton storm was by some measures the biggest since 1989. It was particularly rich in high-speed protons packing more than 100 million electron volts (100 MeV) of energy. Such protons can burrow through 11 centimeters of water. A thin-skinned spacesuit would have offered little resistance.

Got it? Can you follow the bouncing ball? Out of the nearly 9,000 annual hours in a year, any work on the lunar surface will have to be in an enclosed vehicle for only up to 1800 hours annually, and those venturing out of the vehicle will have to be in close proximity to a bunker, with the latter being something the Apollo missions didn't have with up to 74hrs on the lunar surface in something that was stapled like a cardboard box and reynolds wrap, and Apollo missions going fairly consistently on a six month basis.

That's why NASA is developing robonauts, because in any consideration of a manned space colony on the moon will have to have a space bunker below the lunar surface already in place, not just for accessing the lunar surface with people in an enclosed vehicle, but also for the chance of short duration of astronauts on the lunar surface.

Don't worry, contractors will be getting rich and paid fat for developing nifty-neat technology for space missions that might never take place, just as they did during the Apollo era. Evidence for this is seen in the fact that in space an astronaut loses 1-2 percent bone mass in a month's time, and they haven't even got that figured out, but the contracts are being paid, which I already showed in 2009 was 7.7 billion dollars just for the Ares I.

In short, I'm providing evidence that the payloads are going to be used to send robonauts, because not just long term, but also short term, an astronaut is at severe risk on the lunar surface. A problem that didn't appear to exist in the late 60's and early 70's, because, evidently, we had supermen astronauts back then, and problems could be resolved in a matter on months. Pl-ueeze.

apollo_gnomon

09-12-2011, 07:13 PM

The Saturn V was made to carry a 100,000 pounds; whereas, the Ares V is being built to carry 157,000 payload, but with only a difference of 57,000 pounds, NASA is researching about returning to technology that was developed for the Space Shuttle.

The Saturn V could not have lifted the Space Shuttle to orbit. Empty weight for a shuttle was around 165000 pounds.

Shuttle Main Engines (SME) are not needed for static display models, so they were stripped from the shuttles. There is a pool of engines from the fleet, a supply chain for production, parts and maintenance of SMEs, and they're already man-rated equipment. Also, they burn hydrogen/oxygen fuel rather than burning kerosene as did the F-1 engines used in the S-1C.

The SRBs are more powerful than the F-1 engine, and also have an existing supply chain, maintenance infrastructure and man-rating. Reconfiguring existing hardware for a new mission is better than going back to dusty blueprints and remaking something that doesn't do the job better.